Commons Sitting of 18 March 1901

Preamble
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  The following Instruction stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick's):—"That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that no preferential rates shall be given to foreign produce carried over the lines controlled by this Company."
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction which stands in the name of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin is not in order. As I said the other day, in regard to other Instructions on the same Bill, it deals with a matter which affects railways generally, and therefore it cannot be dealt with on a private Bill which does not raise the question.
  MR. FIELD: Of course, Sir, I do not dispute your ruling, but I wish to point out that I am prepared to furnish evidence showing that this particular railway company is acting contrary to the spirit of the Hallway Act. I wish to know what opportunity will be afforded to the House to deal with this particular point.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I cannot assist the hon. Member.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Great Western Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Cromer Water Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

LLANDRINDOD WELLS WATER BILL.
  GOLBORNE GAS BILL

    RICHMOND GAS BILL.
    STROUD GAS BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.

STEATFORD-UPON-AVON, TOWCESTER, AND MIDLAND JUNCTION, EAST AND WEST JUNCTION AND EVESHAM, REDDITCH, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. (BY ORDER.)
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 16th April.
THAMES DEEP WATER DOCK BILL (BY ORDER.)
Read a second time, and committed.
PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read a second time and committed.
PETITIONS.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Leeds: Stalybridge; Ilkeston: Liver-sedge: and School Board for London: to lie upon the Table.
  INHABITED HOUSE DUTY AND INCOME TAX.
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Northern and North Eastern Districts of London; and Liverpool; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1896.
  Petitions for alteration of Law. from Bolton: Stockton: and South borough; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Strood; Aberdeen (three); Atherton and Tyldesley: Over: Anvil Corner: Abersychan; Ashwater; Ashton-under-Lyne: Bradford (Yorks) (four); Birmingham (six): Christow; Branksome: Southwark; Birkenshaw; Cardiff; York (two): Carlisle (seven); Carron; Crediton; Ealing; Falkirk; Glossop; Grampound Road; Glossop Dale; Holsworthy; Bulwell; Low Hesket; Lewisham (two); Messingham; Marton; Newton Burgo-land; Okehampton; Oswaldtwistle; Petersfleld; Plymouth; Pontypool; Sheffield (ten); Salford (two); Southlands; Stonehouse; Tavistock; Black Torrington; Tyldesley (two): North
  218
  Meols; Uttoxeter (two); Wadebridge;. Worksop: Walworth (three); Harrogate (two); Stockton-on-Tees (three); Garndiffaith; Alloa (three); Port Glasgow; Oldham; Leek; Penrith; Kensington; Clapton; Manchester; Taunton (two); Woolwich (two); Malvern (four); Upton-on-Severn; Tenbury; Bensham; Lark-hall; Durham; Edinburgh (five); Notting Hill (two); Lumphanan; Chelmsford; Broomfield; Bilbrough; Malton; Ashton-under-Lyne; Kingussie: Kennethmont; Brixham; Athlone; Kingston-upon-Hull; Partick; Whiteinch; Norton; Bowmore; Barnoldswick; Thomas Stansfield; Falkirk (two); Sandford; Northwich; Blaenavon; Nottingham; Sneinton; Liverpool (two); Cowpen; Morpeth; Bebside; Wandsworth; Newmilns; Gainsborough; Malvern Link; Worcester; Derby; Withyham; Gloucester; Crawley: Down: London; Glasgow; Mildmay Park; Sefton Park (two); Malton (three); Chelsea; Hatherleigh (two); Portsmouth (three); Tregeare; South-sea; Smethwick: Bromley (two): Appledore; Greenock (three); Rhoda Saint; Rovton; Harrington; Leeds (two); Rawtenstall; Bacup; Insch; Kirkstall; Birstal; Brierfield; Colne; North Kensington; Cubitt Town; Sowerby Bridge; Milnathort; Brixham; Rye; Middleton; Rugby; and Aberdovey (five); to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Dundee; Biggar; Peterhead; Pittenween; An struther Easter (two); Kilrenny (three); Ravenscraig; Denny; Kilsyth; Falkirk (two); Airth; Dumfries; Kirkcudbright; Carluke; Kirkfield bank; Wick (two); Kirriemuir; Edinburgh (seven): Lanark; Drumlade; Port Glasgow (two); Peebles (two); Alvie; Glasgow (four); Grand Lodge of Scotland Independent Order of Good Templars; Innerleithen; Walkerburn; Auchterless; Uddingstone; Rothesay; Alva; Tillicoultry (two); Crail; Alloa (two); Larkhall; and Wishaw; to lie upon the Table.
  TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Cupar Eden, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 318 (British Guiana, Annual Report for 1899–1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EMIGRATION (COLONIES).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Emigrants' Information Office for the year ended 31st December, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Return of Military Forces in South Africa (Oversea Colonial Contingents) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No."2561 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on the Police (Scotland) Bill of Session 1890 be referred to the Select Committee on the Police Superannuation (Scotland) Bill.—(The Lord Advocate.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTONS
  QUESTIONS.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—YEOMEN SETTLERS.
    MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has yet considered how far it will assist the passages of wives and families of Yeomen who care to settle in our new colonies in South Africa at the expiration of their term of enlistment; and, if so, can he make any communication to the House on this matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I am not yet in a position to make any statement upon the matter.

    THE SURRENDER OF HELVETIA.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the insinuation of cowardice made against the officer in command of the post at Helvetia captured by the Boers on the 31st December, when that officer was severely wounded in the fight; and whether, in consequence of the distress caused to the relatives of the officer by these insinuations, he will state the facts relating to that surrender.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): As a general court-martial will be held on the officer in command at Helvetia as soon as he is reported fit, I am not in a position to make any statement of facts in reply to the question.
    MR. LAMBERT: Is it not the case that this officer was severely wounded before the surrender took place?
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no doubt it was so, but I must not go into the facts.

    ALLEGED SHOOTING OF BRITISH SUBJECTS BY COMMANDANT DELAREY.
    MR. MACONOCHIE (Aberdeenshire, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has yet received any official intimation of the alleged shooting of two British subjects named MacLauglan and Boyd by orders of Commandant Delarey; whether he is aware that Ronald Boyd was a British subject who had only been in South Africa two years, and held a permit from the late Transvaal Government, granted on his taking the oath of neutrality; and whether he will order an official investigation by the authorities on the spot.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no official information of the matter referred to. I will make inquiry.

    GENERAL COLVILE.
    MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a telegram sent by the Chief of the Staff to General Colvile on 24th May, 1900, to inform him by what route the 13th Yeomanry would join him, did not reach him till

    221
    some weeks after that date; and whether ho has any official information showing that the explanation of the delay is that this telegram was wrongly addressed to the General Officer commanding the 9th Brigade instead of to the General Officer commanding the 9th Division; and, if so, can he state whether any inquiry has been made into the conduct of the officer who so addressed it, and how he has been dealt with.
    MR. BRODRICK: The telegram referred to did not reach General Colvile until after the 31st May. It appears, however, to have been correctly addressed to the General Officer commanding the 9th Division.

    MILITIA RESERVISTS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many men have been taken from the Militia Reserve for the army in South Africa, and when reinforcements from that body had first to be called for owing to the waste of the campaign; and can he inform the House how many of the Militiamen now serving were members of the force at the annual training of 1899.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): 13,574 Militia Reservists have been taken for the army in South Africa. The first drafts to replace wastage left in January, 1900. No figures are available to enable me to reply to the second part of the question.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a Militiaman belonging to the Militia Reserve who has been serving in South Africa since January, 1900, and whose time is up next April, can be compelled by the military authorities to serve ten months longer; and, if not, whether he is entitled to get his discharge.
    LORD STANLEY: A Militia Reservist when called out for permanent service is liable to serve a year beyond the date
    222
    of the expiration of his Reserve service if a state of war exists.

    RANK OF MILITIA OFFICERS.
    MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction felt by officers of the Militia in consequence of the fact that officers of other Auxiliary forces have had Army rank conferred on them while serving; in South Africa, thus giving them seniority over Militia officers of the same rank, although the Militia is the oldest Auxiliary force; and whether he can remedy this by conferring Army rank on all Militia officers serving abroad in future.
    LORD STANLEY: This question is-under consideration. I hope to be able to give a definite answer before long.

    MILITIA—TRAINING OF BATTALIONS NOT EMBODIED.
    MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether be can state if there is to be a regular training this summer of those Militia battalions which are not now embodied: and, if so, under what conditions.
    MR. BRODRICK: This question has not yet been decided.

    STRATHCONA'S HORSE.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the troopers of Strathcona's Horse upon whom His Majesty bestowed medals will be permitted to wear the ribbon of the medal pending the issue of the medal itself; and whether orders will be issued to general officers commanding districts to authorise the wearing of the ribbon as laid down in King's Regulations, paragraph 2,04:8A.
    *LORD STANLEY: When the King bestows a medal on a soldier he can wear the medal and the ribbon. When the Army Order regarding the grant of a war medal for South Africa is published the instructions referred to will be carried, out.

    TEMPORARY STAFF OFFICERS' OUTFIT ALLOWANCES.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a pledge was given by his predecessor to grant an outfit allowance to officers posted to temporary appointments on the staff; and, if so, whether it has been carried out.
    *LORD STANLEY: Presumably the hon. and gallant Member refers to officers taken from the Reserve. Retired List, or Auxiliary Forces for temporary staff employment, and requiring an outfit. In these cases the allowance would be given, but not more than one allowance to any individual officer.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Do not officers on half-pay receive the allowance?
    *LORD STANLEY: I think they come under the heading "Retired List Officers." I am not certain, however, and will make inquiry.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I received a pledge from the late Secretary for War that half-pay officers should have the allowance.

    COMMISSIONS FROM THE RANKS— OUTFITS GRANTS.
    MR. ALLHUSEN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can explain why any exception is made to the giving of a grant of money towards outfit for a soldier from the ranks on receiving a commission; and can he state the amount of the grant usually given, and whether his official information shows that it has been found adequate to cover the expense of an officer's outfit.
    *L0RD STANLEY: The regulations have been relaxed in cases of certain soldiers engaged on active service in South Africa. The amount of the grant is £100. The sum is adequate in the cases of most corps.

    VOLUNTEER SUMMER CAMPS.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that delay in the issue of
    224
    the definite arrangements and regulations for the Volunteer summer camps increases the difficulty of securing attendance, he will take the earliest opportunity possible of making public these arrangements.
    *MR. BRODRICK: I can assure my hon. and gallant friend that every effort is being made to publish the arrangements for Volunteer camps as soon as possible; but he must be aware that the new arrangements of the present year have involved great pressure in all Departments.

    QUEEN VICTORIA'S FUNERAL—1ST SEA FORTH VOLUNTEERS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the 1st Seaforth Volunteers reached London from Dingwall at 5.30 on the morning of Saturday, the 2nd February, by invitation of the War Office, to attend the Queen's funeral, will he state why the staff officers in charge of the funeral ceremonies made no arrangements for the part which these Volunteers were to take at the funeral: and will he explain why no information was obtainable at the War Office with regard to the disposal of the various Volunteers who arrived in London from Scotland to attend the funeral.
    *LORD STANLEY: All country Volunteer corps not included in the funeral procession were formed into a provisional brigade, and positions were allotted to them along the line of route. The disposal of the various Volunteer detachments arriving in London rested entirely with the general commanding the home district.

    PARCEL POSTAGE RATES TO TROOPS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether parcels sent to the troops in Africa are charged 1s. per pound postage: and whether, seeing that similar parcels sent to any part of Australia, New Zealand, or Canada- only cost 6d. per pound, he can arrange for parcels sent to the troops in Africa, to be charged at a similar rate.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: Postage at the rate of 1s. a pound is not charged on parcels for the troops sent from this country to any part of South Africa. Such parcels may be sent to the Cape Colony, Natal, the Orange River Colony, and the Transvaal for a postage of 9d. a pound. For parcels to Australia, New Zealand, and Canada the postage is not 6d. a pound, as the hon. Member supposes. To Australia, by the cheapest route, it is 1s. for the first pound and 6d. for every succeeding pound. To New Zealand as much as three pounds can be conveyed for 1s., the lowest postage; while to Canada the rate is 8d. for the first pound and 6d. for each succeeding pound. The varying requirements of the colonies themselves render it impossible to obtain greater uniformity at present.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: But is it not possible to reduce the charge to the troops to 6d.?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure the Postmaster General would be very glad to do it if possible, and I will communicate with him but I am afraid there are difficulties in the way.

    H.M.S. "JACKAL."
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state whether the officers and men of H.M.S. "Jackal" were on leave of absence during the month of October; and, it so, on what dates.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The officers and men of H.M.S. "Jackal" were not on leave of absence during the month of October last.

    SLAVERY IN PEMBA AND ZANZIBAR.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inform the House of the number of slaves that have received their papers of freedom in the slave courts of Zanzibar and Pemba in each of the years 1898, 1899, and 1900; and if he can give an estimate of the number of slaves still in these two islands.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,(for Viscount CRANBORNE): The number of slaves freed in Zanzibar and Pemba during the years L898, 1899, and 1900 were respectively, 2,735, 4,263, 1,685. His Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Zanzibar estimates the present number of slaves in the two islands at, approximately. 50,000.

    BRITISH CONSULAR AGENTS IN FINLAND.
    MR. DAVID MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what arrangements have been made with the Russian Government for filling up the appointments of British Consular Agents in Finland; can he say at how many and which of the Finnish ports appointments have been made; and, in view of the importance to British traders and shipowners of having in all the principal Finnish ports British Consular Agents to protect and watch over British interests, will the vacancies still remaining soon be filled.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Viscount CRANBORNE): The Consular ports in Finland held by unpaid officers, which became vacant by the resignation of the holders in 1899. have not yet been filled up with the exception of Uleaborg, to which Mr. Blunt was appointed in August last. The paid Consulate at Helsingfors, however, has been re-established, and the Consul. Mr. Cooke, is expected to arrive there very shortly to take up his duties. His Majesty's Government would be very glad to fill up the other vacancies as soon as circumstances permit.

    BRITISH SHIPS IN CHINESE WATERS.
    *SIR E. ASHMEAD BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government has recently endeavoured to exclude the British fleet from certain portions of the Gulf of Pechili, and has claimed the waters of the Blonde and Elliott Islands as exclusively belonging to Russia: and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government has taken in consequence of this claim.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUE (for Viscount CRANBORNE): We have received no communication on this subject from the Russian Government, but the Russian Admiral remonstrated against the presence in the waters of the Elliott Islands of H.M.S. "Plover," which was engaged in pursuing pirates. The action of the Commander-in-Chief on the China Station in sending British ships to these islands appears to be in accordance with our rights under Article 52 of the Treaty of Tientsin.
    *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I understand that this claim has not been accepted by His Majesty's Government?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly.

    BRITISH INFLUENCE IN THE YANG-TSZE VALLEY.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the information in his possession shows that there is a decline of British influence in the Chinese provinces bordering on the Yang-tsze-Kiang river; and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to restore and maintain British influence there.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Viscount CRANHORNE): There is no information showing a decline of British influence in the Yang-tsze Valley.

    ANGLO-RUSSIAN DISPUTE AT TIENTSIN.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I wish to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether he can give the House any information in regard to the reported seizure by Russia of land at Tientsin, which was mortgaged to British bondholders.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): Since I received the private notice I have not had any opportunity of obtaining the last information from the Foreign Office. I must ask the hon. Member to put the question on the Paper.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare. E.): Can the Under Secretary for Foreign. Affairs say why General Barrow's orders, that the action of Russia should be opposed by force of arms, could not be carried out?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The hon. Member must give notice.

    SHANGHAI AND TA-KU CABLE.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the cable recently laid between Shanghai. Wei-hai-wei, and Ta-ku, other than the portion between Wei-hai-wei and Chefoo, shown in the Estimates, has been laid by arrangement with His Majesty's Government, and to whom it belongs; and whether in case the proprietorship of the cable is divided between the Eastern, Extension Telegraph Company and tin-Great Northern Telegraph Company, the nationality of the persons employed in the offices at Shanghai, Chefoo, Wei-hai-wei, and Ta-ku has been provided for in the agreement; or whether, the Great Northern Company being the Danish company which uses the Russian land lines as part of its system, the new cable is subject to the same arrangements as those which have previously existed with regard to the offices in China of that company.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol. W.): The cable between Shanghai. Chefoo, and Ta-ku (which does not touch at Wei-hai-wei) has been laid by the Eastern Extension and Great Northern Telegraph Companies, on account of the Chinese Telegraph Administration, under an arrangement which His Majesty's. Government recognises and supports. The cable is mortgaged by the Chinese administrations to the companies for twenty-five years at least, and they will work and maintain it. Wei-hai-wei will be served by a branch line from Chefoo. It is stipulated in the, agreement between the Eastern Extension Company and His Majesty's Government that the branch line shall be worked by British staff, and that all traffic between Wei- hai-wei, Chefoo, Shanghai, and Hong Kong shall also, as far as practicable,

    229
    be transmitted exclusively by British staff.

    UNCLAIMED FUNDS.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state or approximately estimate the amount of unclaimed dividends on Consols and other National funds; of unclaimed deposits and balances in Joint stock, trustees, and post Office Savings Banks: of the unclaimed dividends of joint stock and of limited liability companies: and of unclaimed funds in Chancery and other courts of law; and whether in default of specific information as to the detailed and aggregate amounts of these unclaimed funds, he will agree to an inquiry with a view to their being utilised for the relief of the taxation of the country.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: With regard to the majority of the various funds of the nature of unclaimed dividends which are in the hands of or under the control of Government, I will send to the hon. Member the information he desires, but it would not be possible to present the facts intelligibly within the limits of an answer. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of saying that the idea which appears to he prevalent in some quarters that there are large sums of such moneys lying idle is quite a mistake. The total amount is not at all huge, and the moneys are I think in all cases, where of sufficient amount, usefully employed. With regard to funds of a similar nature outside the purview of Government, I have no information, and I do not at present see how it is to be obtained: but I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

    THE NEW COINAGE.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the title "Defender of the Faith" is to be retained on the new coinage; and, if so, whether he can say what particular faith is referred to.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It does not rest with me as the Master of the Mint to decide on the Royal titles. While these remain unaltered, they will naturally continue to appear as at present on the coins.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if it is not his business, will he kindly tell me whose business it is, in order that I may ask that Gentleman?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I imagine that, like other matters of the kind, it would be the business of His Majesty, acting on the advice of his responsible Minister.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of bringing under His Majesty's notice the fact that he has no earthly right to this title.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Insolence.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But he has not.

    MAGISTRATES AND THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the inconvenience caused by existing requirements, he will advise His Majesty to issue an order under Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act. 1871, enabling justices to take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath before any two justices in petty sessions assembled.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I propose to take the King's pleasure on this matter.

    TREATMENT OF INEBRIATES.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how many persons have been committed to inebriate homes under the Inebriates Act of 1898.
    *MR. RITCHIE: I can only give the number of persons received into inebriate reformatories—namely, up to the present time, 257.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say how many-have been committed?
    *MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir, I am afraid not.

    BRADFORD ANTI-VACCINATIONISTS.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the arrest of Walter Mottershead, of Bradford, at 5 o'clock in the morning of the 26th February, in consequence of his child, aged two years, not having been vaccinated; whether he will give directions that such an arrest should not be made at such an hour in the morning; and whether in the event of the child not being vaccinated he can interfere to prevent the man being again prosecuted.
    *MR. RITCHIE: My attention has already been drawn to this case, but I have no authority to give any directions of the nature indicated, or to intervene in the course of criminal proceedings.

    EARTHENWARE AND CHINA INDUSTRY—LEAD POISONING.
    MR. JAMES HEATH (Staffordshire, N.W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give a Return of the number of cases of lead poisoning in. earthenware and china works during the years 1.890 and 1900, with a statement in each case of the degree of seriousness of the ailment, and, wherever possible, the length of time for which the person was absent from work.
    *MR. RITCHIE: I will give a Return showing so far as possible the severity of the attack, the number of previous attacks and the nature of the principal symptoms; but I am afraid that it is not possible to show the length of time for which each person was absent from work.

    SUGGESTED AMNESTY FOR IRISH POLITICAL PRISONERS.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of recommending His Majesty the King to signalise his accession to the Throne by ordering the release of all the Irish political prisoners at present confined in the gaols of the United Kingdom.
    *MR. RITCHIE: So far as I am aware there are no Irish confined in any prison in England or Wales who can in any sense of the term be called political prisoners. I am not responsible for Irish or Scotch prisons.
    MR. DELANY: What about the prisoners referred to by the hon. Member for Galway who have been convicted by packed juries?
    [No answer was given.]

    VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IN THE METROPOLIS.
    MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the fact that over 1,100 persons are injured and over 50 deaths occur through, accidents caused by covered vehicles in the streets of London every year, whether it is the Government's intention to grant to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis authority to compel proprietors of covered vehicles to have them so constructed as to enable drivers to see passing and following traffic.
    *ME. RITCHIE: I quite agree with my predecessor, who said, in answer to a question last year, that these covered vehicles are undoubtedly a danger, but I am afraid the Government have no power to grant the authority suggested.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state how many outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred this year, whether more or less than occurred to this date last year; whether his attention has been drawn to the danger of introducing the disease by the importation of hides, skins, and offal from countries infected with the disease; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent such infection in this country.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): Ten outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred this year. In the corresponding period of 1900 there were seven, but the counties

    233
    affected this year are only two as against three last year. The possibility of the introduction of the disease by the importation of skins, hides, and offal, as well as by hay and straw, and in many similar ways, has been the subject of frequent inquiry and attention, but while the evidence of actual danger is not clear, especially in the case of the imports mentioned in the question, the inconvenience to the many trades concerned would be out of all proportion to the] risk involved, and there is no precedent for a general prohibition of such imports. It is, of course, the duty of the Customs under the Foreign Animals Order of 1896 to seize, detain, and, if necessary, destroy in specific cases, where there is reason to believe that disease may be introduced.
    MR. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in any cases of susspected infection the hides are disinfected?
    *MR. HANBURY: Of course.

    FIRE DEFENCE.
    MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to a speech delivered by his predecessor in office, on 12th April, 1899, on the subject of fire brigades†; whether he has considered the Report of the Select Committee thereupon issued in July, 1900; and whether, having regard to the danger and anxiety caused by the existing state of fire defence, he is prepared to introduce a measure based upon the unanimous recommendation of that Select Committee.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,: The Report of the Select Committee is receiving my consideration, but I cannot hold out any prospect of introducing a Bill on the subject during the present session.
    MR. MALCOLM: If a Bill based on the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee is introduced into the
    † See 'The. Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxix., page 901.
    234
    House, will the right hon. Gentleman support it?
    MR. WALTER LONG: It is impossible for me to answer that, as the recommendations of the Committee affect Departments other than my own.

    WIDENING OF PICCADILLY.
    *COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can say when the proposed widening of Piccadilly will be carried out.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): This is a work, as my hon. and gallant friend is aware, which is to be carried out by the County Council, I believe they will be ready to commence it in the ensuing summer.

    HYDE PARK GATES.
    COLONEL TUFNELL (Essex, S.E.): I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he would consider the advisability of allowing cabs proceeding to Paddington Station to pass through the gates at Hyde Park Corner along the north side of the Serpentine and out at Victoria Gate.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: This could not be allowed without an alteration of the Statutory Rules made under the Parks Regulation Act. I do not think it would be advisable to take any steps for the alteration of the rules at present.

    EDINBURGH NEW INLAND REVENUE BUILDINGS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, having regard to the fact that the construction of the new Inland Revenue Buildings at Edinburgh was for some time delayed owing to the quarry from which the stone was obtained having ceased working, will he say whether a sufficient quantity of suitable stone has now been obtained from another quarry, and what progress has been made with, the buildings.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: A sufficient quantity of suitable stone was obtained from another quarry, and the contract was completed in October. 1899.

    KESSOCK FERRY, INVERNESS—CON-VEYANCE OF MAILS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the mails are conveyed over Kessock Ferry, Inverness, as passengers' luggage; and will he state whether the mails are conveyed over both public and private ferries throughout the United Kingdom under similar conditions; and under what Act of Parliament this practice is authorised.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is advised that he is entitled to claim that the postman who crosses Kessock Perry with the mails should be conveyed for the charge applicable to ordinary members of the public and their luggage. The conditions under which mails are conveyed over public and private ferries throughout the United Kingdom are not in all cases identical. In England the Postmaster General has, as a rule, a right to the free use of a ferry not only for his mails, but for any officer in charge of them. The enactment bearing on the conveyance of postmen with mails across ferries is Section 9 of the Post Office (Offences) Act, 1837 (1. Vic. c. 3G); but there are doctrines of the common law of England also bearing on the question.

    WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY— THE TOST OFFICE AND STEAMSHIP COMPANIES.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can explain what are the hindrances to the adoption by British steamship companies of the Marconi system of wireless telegraphy now in use on board of Belgian and German steamers; whether he can state what requirements are made by the British Post Office which are not made by foreign post offices; and whether such as are proved to be hindrances will be speedily removed.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The only steamship companies who have applied to the Postmaster General are those engaged in the Channel services to Prance. Negotiations are proceeding with those companies, and the Postmaster General is not in a position to give any further information at present.

    BOLTON POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES' GRIEVANCES.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the Secretary to the Post Office has received a petition from the employees at the Bolton post office calling attention to certain grievances in connection with the transference of rural postmen to the town, forwarded to him on the '20th November, 1900; if so, can he say when it was acknowledged; and what action does he propose to take in regard to the grievances mentioned therein.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Inquiry has been made, but no trace of the memorial from postmen at Bolton of November last having been received in the Secretary's office can at present be found. A revision of the delivery arrangements at Bolton is now in course of preparation, and in connection with this the complaints about their present duties, which are understood to have been put forward in the memorial in question by the postmen who were transferred from the rural district in 1897, will be duly considered by the Postmaster General.

    CIVIL SERVICE RULES MONITOR CANDIDATES.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why persons who have served as monitors in national schools in Ireland for a period of five years are not granted the same allowances in age when competing for Civil Service appointments as are granted to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary of five years service; and whether he will take steps to instruct the Civil Service Commissioners to have monitors included amongst those classes of persons to whom age allowances are made when competing for Civil Service appointments.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As my predecessor explained on 9th April last, it is undesirable that persons who have been trained at public expense for the position of teacher should be given special encouragement to quit that pro-fession for the Civil Service. I cannot

    237
    therefore give the undertaking suggested in the second paragraph of the question.

    RADWINTER AND HEMPSTEAD POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
    MR. ARMINE WODEHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General is aware of the inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of the villages of Radwinter and Hempstead, in Essex, owing to having only one delivery of letters a day, which makes it impossible for them to get a newspaper on the day of issue, while immediately adjacent villages though further from their post town have two deliveries, and whether the Postmaster General will reconsider the answer communicated last month to the Chairman of the Hempstead Parish Council: and whether he is aware that frequently the walking postman is unable to take parcels duly posted at Hempstead owing to having more than he can carry, and whether he will make inquiry with a view to remedying this state of things.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has received from time to time applications for a second post from the inhabitants of Radwinter and Hempstead. The matter has been carefully considered, but it is found that the cost of the present service to these places exceeds the revenue from the correspondence, and that the expense of providing a second post is not justified. The Postmaster General is not aware that the postman is unable to take all parcels posted at Hempstead, but he is having inquiry made on the subject.

    MALLAIG AND STORNOWAY STEAM SKRVICE.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state when the proposed experimental steamer service between Mallaig and Stornoway will commence, and for how long this experimental service will be in operation; and in view of the dissatisfaction which exists in regard to the present steamer service, will care be taken that tenders are invited for the new steamer service between Mallaig and Stornoway as soon
    238
    as the precise nature of the service to be given has been determined.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The institution of any mail service by steamer between Mallaig and Stornoway is dependent upon the opening of the railway to Mallaig, upon the times at which the railway company may finally decide to run the trains, and upon the arrangements which the Postmaster General may be able to make with the company. The question of inviting tenders for a permanent mail service by steamer between the above-named places will be further considered when any service, which it may be found desirable to establish experimentally, has been in actual operation for a sufficient period.

    PONTYPOOL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
    MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the fact that the telephone exchange for the Abergavenny district is at Pontypool, he could state whether the transfer of the Abergavenny district to the Pontypool Telephone Exchange area is in any way barred by any condition in the Agreement with the National Telephone Company in connection with the purchase of the trunk lines by the State in 1896; and whether he could arrange for such transfer for the convenience of persons resident in the Abergavenny district and in the Pontypool Telephone Exchange area.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The limitation of local telephone exchange business to defined areas was a necessary condition of the Agreement of 1896, under which the Post Office purchased the telephone trunk wires of the National Telephone Company, and undertook the maintenance and extension of the trunk wire system. The fusion of the Pontypool and Abergavenny Exchange areas as defined by that Agreement would involve the abandonment of its main principle.

    THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES— DELAY IN PUBLICATION.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that at four o'clock

    239
    on the afternoon of the 14th instant the last number of The Parliamentary Debates to be obtained in the Library was that recording the proceedings of the 25th February; and, seeing that this represents an arrear of nine or ten days beyond contract time, can he say whether the delay is due to the extra work thrown on the reporters in consequence of the recent late sittings; and whether he will take steps to ensure a more prompt issue of the Debates. In putting this question I desire to say that it implies no reflection on the reporting staff', which I believe is doing its duty very satisfactorily.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I am aware that there has been a very regrettable delay in the publication of the Debates this session, but I am informed that within a few minutes of the time mentioned in the hon. Member's question two more daily parts were placed in the Library. I have communicated with the contractors, who inform mo that the delay has been due to the breakdown of a vessel conveying new plant and material for use in the work, but that the plant and material are now in their hands and the arrears are being rapidly made up. I hope that under these circumstances no further cause of complaint will arise. The hon. Member will see that it is not suggested that the delay is due to the reporting staff.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: 1s the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last number of the printed proceedings of this House in the Library now is dated 28th February—eighteen days ago?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of the fact, but I accept the hon. Member's statement. I hope that now the new machinery has reached the contractors the delay will soon be made up.
    MR. TENNANT: May I ask where the new plant and machinery came from—was it made in Germany or not?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    SHIELDAIG AND APPLECROSS (ROSS-SHIRE) CART ROAD.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that one
    240
    of the proprietors in the parish of Apple-cross, Ross-shire, has refused to give permission for the construction of a cart road between Shieldaig and Applecross; and can the Secretary for Scotland take any steps to secure the construction of the proposed road.
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am not aware of the fact referred to in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, and in any case the matter seems to lie with the road authority.

    KING'S TITLE IN SCOTLAND.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the officials in the Signet Office in Edinburgh decline to signet summonses running in the name of His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward unless the words "the Seventh" are added; and whether, in view of the fact that no Sovereign bearing the name of Edward has hitherto reigned in Scotland, instructions will be given to discontinue the practice in all writs and documents running in the name of the Crown relating to Scotland alone.
    MR.JOHN DEWAR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I inquire whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Oath; of Allegiance taken by hon. Members was to "King Edward'' and not to "King Edward VII."?
    MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen. N.): Is the Lord Advocate aware that, if a rigorous rule were enforced as to the words '' the Seventh," a precedent would be created which was not adhered to in the similar case of William IV.?
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The answer to the question on the Paper is that it has been decided, after full consideration, that His Majesty shall sign as Edward VII. all writs passing the signet and other documents running in the name of the Crown in Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland sees no sufficient ground on which to suggest an alteration of this decision as is suggested in the question. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen, I have made inquiry into the

    241
    matter, and find that in the time of William IV. signet letters and summonses always ran in the name of "William the Fourth," so that precedent is adhered to. As to the question of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, I candidly confess I have tried in vain to find a Scotch grievance in the King's designation as Edward VII. It seems to me to be really a matter of convenience of citation, and that it would lead to considerable confusion if the statutes were cited in Scotland as those of Edward 1. of Scotland. His Majesty was proclaimed under the title of Edward VII., and the old idea in Scotland in regard to King James does not arise, because the statutes were not cited in the same way as now.
    MR. PIRIE: May I point out that the precedent of William IV. was not always followed?

    SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD—ROAD CONSTRUCTION.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that efforts are being made to induce the Congested Districts Board to construct private roads on certain estates in the congested area.; and will care be taken that the funds of the Board are not expended in the construction of roads which are to be specially under the control of landlords and for their exclusive benefit.
    *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that their practice is only to entertain the question of grants for such roads as are approved by the Statutory Authority, namely, the district committee whose application is forwarded to the county council; and they are then further advised by the consulting engineer to the Board. In these circumstances there seems no reason for giving any undertaking to provide against the insinuation conveyed in the latter part of the hon. Member's question.

    AVOCH HARBOUR.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that in 1894 a landowner of Rosehaugh, at Avoch, Ross-shire, obtained a Provisional Order for the con-
    242
    struction of a harbour, can it be stated whether Mr. Fletcher has since taken any steps to put into execution the terms of the Order; and will he state whether the Order has some time since lapsed.
    MR. WALTER LONG (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): I understand that the works authorised by the Avoch Harbour Order, 1894, have not been commenced within the prescribed time. If this be the case, the powers conferred by the Order would appear to have ceased.
    MR. WEIR: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question?
    MR. LONG: No, Sir, I can only give the answer I have received. The hon. Member must put down any further question.
    MR. WEIR: It is a very unsatisfactory answer.

    APPEAL FOR IRISH PRISONERS.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the cases of two prisoners undergoing penal servitude for life, one, Patrick Finnigan, in Mountjoy Prison, and another, Constable Muldowney, in Maryborough Prison, on conviction of complicity in murder; whether he is aware that His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant received petitions from all the public representative bodies, eleven in number, in the county of Galway, praying His Excellency to consider their cases; and whether, in view of the fact that they have spent eighteen years in prison, His Excellency will now give their cases his most favourable consideration with a view to the exercise of the clemency of the Crown.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The petitions referred to were received by the Lord Lieutenant, who decided, so recently as August last, that the law must take its course. But if any new fact has transpired since then it can be brought before the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who is the dispenser of the prerogative of mercy in that island.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will add to his statement by saying that he will look into the facts of the case himself, and use his influence with the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid I could not. It would be altogether outside my sphere.
    MR. DUFFY: But is it not the fact that occasions when a Monarch ascends the Throne are deemed auspicious opportunities for exercising the prerogative of mercy? Will the Government not take into consideration the fact that these men have been in prison nineteen years?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question has been answered.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Any facts should be laid not before me, but before the Lord Lieutenant, who dispenses the prerogative of mercy.
    MR. DUFFY: Well, I shall certainly bring this matter under the notice of the House.

    LIVE-STOCK BREEDING IN IRELAND.
    MR. KENNEDY (Westmeath, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take steps to co-ordinate the administration of Government grants for encouraging improvement in the breeding of live stock in Ireland by transferring to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland the grant now made for that purpose to the Royal Dublin Society.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The grant now made to the Royal Dublin Society for encouraging improvement in the breeding of live stock in Ireland is, by mutual arrangement, administered in co-ordination with the Department of Agriculture. In framing its schemes the Society has conferred with the Department, and has endeavoured to frame its rules so as to avoid the risk of its work overlapping or conflicting with the work of the Department.
    MR. KENNEDY: Does not the present system produce friction?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that the Royal Dublin Society and the Public Department are working in harmony on this matter.

    IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT—THE WEXFORD APPEAL.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the Vote for the Local Government Board for Ireland will be taken, and if the Government will provide an opportunity for discussing the case of the Wexford County Council v. The Local Government Board.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This question should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury. I am quite prepared to express my opinion in the course of any debate on this matter.

    LOWER ORMOND ELECTORAL DIVISIONS.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the reason for the delay in carrying out the recommendation of the County Council of North Tipperary with regard to the transfer to the Borrisokane Union of certain electoral divisions in the barony of Lower Ormond.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The general question of the amalgamation and alteration of certain unions is engaging the attention of the Local Government Board. The recommendation of the North Tipperary County Council will be considered with other proposals of a like nature.

    KERRY ASSIZES—JURY CHALLENGING.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many Roman Catholics attended as jurors at last Kerry assizes, how many were ordered to stand aside in the trial of the Glencar prisoners, and on what grounds was such an order given; and can he explain why those prisoners who had given substantial bail for their appearance at the trial, and whom the jury acquitted, were conveyed hand-

    245
    cuffed in pairs through the streets of Tralee to the county gaol.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information as to the religious composition of the panel. The number of jurors on the panel was 100, of whom 69 answered. In answer to the second paragraph, when the hearing of the cases was adjourned overnight on the 12th instant, application was made to the Lord Chief Justice for the admission of the accused to bail, but this application was refused by the learned judge. The prisoners were then conveyed by car, handcuffed, to the gaol; they were not marched through the streets. They were handcuffed by order of the gaoler, who, as responsible for their safe custody until finally dealt with by the, Court, was bound to take every necessary precaution for their safe keeping.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Can you state the number who were ordered to stand by?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Fifty-four.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.): Are prisoners in similar circumstances in England handcuffed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That is a hypothetical question that it would be very difficult to answer.
    MR. FLYNN: Are you aware that these prisoners had been out on bail?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am perfectly aware of that. Under similar circumstances prisoners have sometimes not come up.
    COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.): Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent these things occurring?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is in the discretion of the officials who are responsible for the safe keeping of the prisoners.
    MR, TULLY (Leitrim, S.): Do you know that the condition of bail bonds is that they are to last from day to day?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    IRISH QUEEN'S COLLEGES.
    MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu- tenant of Ireland whether he will state the amount of cost incurred in establishing the Queen's Colleges of Cork, Belfast, and Galway. and also the amount of present endowments and the total amounts of the annual grants since made for maintenance and such purposes.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The original cost of the buildings to the State was £100,000, and additional grants amounting to £138,627 have since been made for new buildings and cost of maintenance. Each of the colleges receives an endowment of £7,000 a year out of the Consolidated Fund, together with an annual Parliamentary Vote of £1,600 in aid of expenses.

    IRISH DISTRICT INSPECTORS OF CONSTABULARY.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that it is the practice of the Constabulary authorities not to allow district inspectors to remain longer than four years in the first district to which they are sent after completing their training as cadets in the depot, he can explain why District Inspector Wallace, of Belmullet, has been retained for twelve years in that district; and can he say whether any other district inspectors in the force have been retained in control of a police district for such a length of time?
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no regulation to the effect mentioned in the first paragraph. District Inspector Wallace has been retained at Belmullet in the interests of the public service, and several other officers have remained in charge of districts for similar and even longer periods.

    QUEEN VICTORIA'S FUNERAL— POLICE AND IRISH SHOPKEEPERS.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Mr. John O'Malley, a licensed publican of Belmullet, having declined to close his premises on 2nd February, on the occasion of the funeral of Her late

    247
    Majesty, in accordance with the orders of the police, they entered his shop and only refrained from putting up the window shutters when Mr. O'Malley eventually requested his assistants to close his shop; and, can he state by whose authority the Belmullet police ordered the local publicans to close their premises on the occasion referred to.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The allegation that the police entered Mr. O'Maliey's premises on the 2nd February is without foundation. Several publicans asked the District Inspector on the previous day whether they were required to close, and that officer expressed the opinion, erroneously, that the day came within the provisions of the Licensing Act of 1872.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will compensation be given to the publicans for their loss of trade through having acted on instructions erroneously given by the police?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I do not know whether the error was corrected in time or not. In the only other instance in which it was made it was corrected in time.

    CONGESTED DISTRICT BOARDS WORK IN COUNTY GALWAY.
    MR. O'MALLEY: J bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will furnish particulars as to the operations of the Congested Districts Board in County Galway, similar to those which he has promised to supply in county Kerry.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The information will be sent to the hon. Member in the course of a few days.

    IRISH RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILS.
    *MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take steps to extend the powers of the rural district councils in Ireland that will confer on them the right already enjoyed by urban councils to erect artizans dwellings for tradesmen in towns which have not
    248
    been urbanised under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, so as to enable these rural councils to provide for the better housing of the tradesmen in such towns.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The rural district councils have extensive powers for providing house accommodation under the Labourers Acts. As at present advised, I am not prepared to extend those powers by applying the Housing of the Working Classes Acts to rural districts.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to break down the monopoly?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I do not admit that there is a monopoly. The time has not come to apply to urban districts the powers now exercised in rural districts.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question?
    MR. WYNDHAM: My reply was based on my consideration of it.

    INLAND REVENUE— PROSECUTION OF MR. LESLIE.
    *DR. THOMPSON (Monaghan, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of Mr. Leslie, who was a party to the recent proceedings in the King's Bench Division in Ireland, the first permission to Mr. Leslie given by the Inland Revenue authorities was to continue to carry on the business of selling intoxicating liquors pending the decision of that Court; and that this decision was given on the 21st December 1900, while the date of the application on behalf of Mr. Leslie for a new permission was the 11th January 1901; can he state whether Mr. Leslie sold intoxicating liquors or exposed them for sale between the 21st December and the 11th January; and, if so, will directions be given to the local police authorities to take proceedings against him for his breach of the law, and will the second permission granted be now withdrawn.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The facts are set out with substantial accuracy in the first paragraph of the question. Intoxicating liquors were not sold or exposed for sale by Mr. Leslie in the interval between the 21st December, when the King's Bench Division delivered judgment, and the 23rd January, when the permission was obtained. The concluding inquiry in the question of the hon. Member for North Monaghan should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but probably the hon. Member will be satisfied with the assurance given by my right hon. friend on Friday last.

    INLAND REVENUE—QUEEN'S STORES, DUBLIN.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Excise Bonded Stores, at 12, North Wall, Dublin, known as the Queen's Stores, have recently been sold to a shipping company; and, if so, whether it is intended that the premises be continued as bonded stores; and whether the porters employed by the Inland Revenue in connection with these stores will be continued in the service or receive remuneration if disemployed.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is a fact that arrangements have been made by the Board of Works (Dublin) for the sale of the Queen's Stores, North Wall, Dublin, to a shipping company; but the Board of Inland Revenue are not aware of the purpose for which the company propose to use the premises. The porters employed by the Board at the stores have received notice that their services will not be required after the 31st instant. They will receive on retirement such gratuities as they may be qualified for under the Superannuation Act.

    TALLOW CONSPIRACY CASE AT WATERFORD ASSIZES.
    MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many jurors were ordered by the Crown to stand aside at the recent Waterford assizes in the case of the alleged conspiracy at Tallow, county Waterford;
    250
    and can he give the grounds on which the Crown Solicitor directed John Power and other jurors to stand aside, and state the proportion of the entire panel directed to stand aside.
    MR. ATKINSON: With the permission of my right hon. friend, I will reply to this question. There were 120 jurors on the panel in the case referred to. The number of jurors ordered to stand by by the Crown in the case referred to was forty-three. The Crown Solicitor ordered the juror named to stand by, as he did all others, in the discharge of the duty expressly imposed upon him by the circular letter of February, 1894—namely, that while abstaining from requiring any juror to stand by on account of his political or religious opinions he should "direct to stand by all such persons as ho should have reason to believe were likely to be hindered from giving an impartial verdict, by favour towards the accused or fear of the consequences to their persons, property, or trade."
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Were these forty-three men ordered to stand aside because their religion has been declared by the King to be abominable and idolatrous?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Hon. Members must not attempt to debate the answers.

    FERMANAGH COUNTY SECRETARY.
    MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the conditions under which the salary of the secretary of the County Council of Fermanagh was arrived at, namely, on the suggestion of the Court of King's Bench, that the secretary of the council and the county council should come to a settlement, and an adjournment of the case for a week for that purpose, and seeing that the Court confirmed the order of the Local Government Board against the efforts of the council, raising the salaries of the assistant county surveyors by 50 per cent., he will grant an inquiry if the County Council of Fermanagh are willing to pay the expenses of said inquiry.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I can only suggest, as I did on Friday last, that the best

    251
    course will be to await the result of the Wexford inquiry.

    ENNISKILLEN LAND APPEALS.
    MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the Land Commission will next sit in Ennis-killen to hear the arrears of appeals to their Court in the county of Fermanagh.
    MR. WYNDHAM: NO, Sir; the Commissioners are unable at present to assign a date.

    PORTADOWN DISTURBANCES.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the frequency of the attacks made on the Roman Catholic Church, Edenderry, Portadown, especially within the last twelve months; whether he can state the number of times in that period the windows of the church referred to have been deliberately broken; and whether any report on the subject has been made by the local police authorities to the Castle; and, if so, whether any action, and, if any, what action, has been taken by the Executive in reference thereto.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Some panes of glass in this church have been broken within the past year on three separate occasions. Respectable people of all denominations have expressed their disapproval of these mischievous and wanton acts. They are believed to have been committed by boys; and windows, I may observe, have also been broken in the Protestant Church, also, I imagine, by boys. The occurrences were duly re-reported by the local constabulary, by whom every effort was made to trace the guilty parties, though, I regret to say, without result.
    MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire?
    MR. WYNDHAM: If it is a question of my obtaining evidence where the police have failed, I doubt if I can succeed.
    MR. CLANCY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received three letters from
    252
    the Roman Catholics of Portadown on this subject, and not answered a single one?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That fact has not come to my knowledge.

    SHILLELAGH UNION INQUIRY.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give the names of the witnesses summoned by Dr. Flinn on behalf of Nurse Joyce in connection with the recent Local Government Board inquiry at Shillelagh; also the names of those witnesses who gave evidence for Nurse Joyce and of those who did not give evidence.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The names of the persons summoned were Mrs. Brennan, Mrs. Nolan, Mrs. Moran, Mrs. Gregan, Mrs. Kavanagh, Mrs. M'Donald, Mr. Nolan, Mr. James. The first four gave evidence, the others either failed to attend the inquiry, or left before it concluded. Three other witnesses who were not summoned also gave evidence on behalf of the nurse—namely, the Rev. Mr. Busher, Mr. Trayner, and Mr. Byrne, chairman of the guardians.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a week ago he told me in answer to a question that sixteen witnesses had been examined?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    IRISH BOARD OF WORKS.
    *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Chairman of the Board of Works, Ireland, has resigned, and whether his resignation has been accepted; whether any appointment has yet been made to the office, and, if so, whether he can say who has been appointed, and what are his qualifications for the office.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The present Chairman's term of five years expires at the end of this month. I hope to be able to announce the name of his successor in a few days.

    CLONES RAILWAY GATES.
    *DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he

    253
    is aware of the inconvenience to the people of the town and neighbourhood of Clones, by reason of the obstruction to the traffic caused by the almost constant closure of the railway gates across one of the main roads leading into Clones, will he cause inquiry to be made whether a bridge over the crossing can be easily constructed, and if he will order an inspector to visit the place complained of and furnish a report to the Board of Trade of the result of his investigation of this public nuisance and danger.
    MR. WALTER LONG (for Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The questions affecting this level crossing have engaged the attention of the Board of Trade and an inspection was made last year. My right hon. friend will be happy to supply the hon. Member, if he so desires, with a copy of the inspector's report. I understand that the railway company are proposing to construct new sidings with the view of diminishing the amount of shunting over the crossing and have obtained powers for the purchase of the necessary land.

    IRISH-SPEAKING POSTMASTERS.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether in appointments to the office of postmaster in Wales, a knowledge of the Welsh language is essential; and whether seeing that correspondents in the west of Ireland have had letters addressed in Irish returned to them as insufficiently addressed or not known; and whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of this by appointing for the present one or two Irish scholars to the office in Dublin, and by securing for future appointments in the Irish-speaking districts in Ireland postmasters with a knowledge of the language.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In appointing postmasters at places where the Welsh language is in general use preference is given to candidates who have a knowledge of the language. In the Postmaster General's opinion, no sufficient reason exists for requiring a knowledge of the Irish language from postmasters or other servants of the Department in Ireland.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to do what is asked in the last paragraph of the question?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot make any promise. If the hon. Member has any special reasons to advance and will send them to me, I will forward them to the Postmaster General.

    DUBLIN POST OFFICE REVISION.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the revision of 1891, under which the scale of pay of the Dublin male supervising force was raised—namely, the scale previous to 1891 £150 per annum, rising by £8 per annum to £190, and the scale after revision of 1891 £200 per annum, rising by £10 per annum to £250; and, seeing that the former scale was retained for a clerks' class, but that all the members of this class in 1891 were advanced to the latter scale, their duties being identical with those performed by the female supervising force, whose maximum pay is only half that of males, whether the Postmaster General in the coming revision will grant the female supervising staff an increase in scale of pay, with the view of allaying the discontent which has long existed; and will he take steps to have open competitive examinations held in Dublin for at least some of the places by which it is intended to increase the Dublin female staff.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware of the nature of the revision of 1891 under which the scale of pay of the Dublin male supervising force was raised; the female supervising force also obtained an improvement of pay and position at the same time. As was stated in reply to the hon. Member on the 7th instant, the scales for the female supervising force are those proper to their class at offices such as Dublin, and no reason is seen for increasing them. It is not possible to say at present whether any of the vacancies for female sorting clerks and telegraphists caused by the revision will be filled by open competition.

    THE ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can inform the House when the Joint Committee on the subject of the Sovereign's Accession. Oath and Declaration will be appointed; and whether he will consider the advisability of moving an Instruction to the Committee to inquire to what extent the Declaration is objectionable to Roman Catholics and likewise to the members of the Creek Orthodox Church.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This matter has been initiated in another place, and until the House of Lords appoint the Committee, I am afraid we cannot take any steps; but I do not think there will be any delay in appointing the Committee.
    MR. DELANY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would be undoubtedly open to the Committee to take evidence, if they wished to do so, as to the way in which the Declaration was objectionable to His Majesty's subjects.
    MR. DELANY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me how many relatives of the King, including reigning sovereigns, belong to the Greek Church?
    [No answer was returned.]
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the resolutions condemnatory of the portion of the King's Accession Oath offensive to Roman Catholics which were passed by grand juries, county councils, corporations, district councils, and other public bodies in Ireland, and by representative organisations in Great Britain, Canada, Australia, the United States, and other foreign countries, in order that the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons about to be appointed to inquire into and report on this matter may have the advantage of considering them before coming to a decision on the question.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it necessary to publish the Return asked for. It will be in the competence of the Committee to call for any information they desire. I should have thought that the general topics suggested in the question are matters of common knowledge; and if they are not, the Committee will have full power to make themselves more fully acquainted with them.
    *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Will the Committee be empowered to take evidence from Protestants who may object to any alteration in the Declaration?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: So I should suppose.

    THE CIVIL LIST COMMITTEE— PUBLICATION OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the recent unauthorised publication of documents laid before the Civil List Committee, he will consider whether effect should now be given to the recommendation of the Cottage Homes Bill Committee that the representative of the offending newspaper should be deprived of the entrée to the Lobby.
    MR, YOUNG: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the frequent unauthorised publication of official documents by The Times newspaper, he will now act upon the advice of the Cottage Homes Bill Committee and exclude its Parliamentary correspondent from the Lobby.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to these questions, I do not think I need do more than remind both hon. Members that this matter has been brought under the notice of Mr. Speaker, and that it will no doubt be dealt with by him as circumstances render desirable.
    MR. ROCHE: Then I will respectfully address my question to you, Mr. Speaker.
    *MR. SPEAKER: It is not a question of order or procedure, and such questions alone should be addressed to me.
    MR. ROCHE: May I remind the House that the recommendation of the Committee was that the Lobby representatives of newspapers who published privileged documents should be excluded from the inner lobbies of the House?
    *MR. SPEAKER: The House has entrusted to me the superintendence of the admission of the representatives of the press to the Lobby; but it will be impossible for me to perform that duty if I am to be questioned on the exercise of my discretion as though I were a Minister performing Ministerial duties.
    MR. O'SHEE: Then how, Sir, will you intimate to the House the course which you have taken?
    *MR. SPEAKER: When I do intimate it, the hon. Member will know.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether it is proposed that the Government will institute proceedings under the Official Secrets Act against the newspaper in which publication was given to the confidential documents laid before the Civil List Committee.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR ROBERT FINLAY,): I cannot add anything to the answer I gave the other day to the hon. Member for Dundee.†

CIVIL SERVICE REVISED SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he wished to ask a question of the First Lord of the Treasury with reference to the Supplementary Estimates. It seemed to him that these Estimates, in the form in which they were to-day presented to the House for the first time, would be put in one sum from the Chair. This would enable the whole of the amount to be taken at once if the Government in their necessity thought it expedient to do so. Formerly, each Supplementary Estimate was put separately from the Chair. He wished to ask why had this innovation been introduced without notice, and what
† See page 102 of this Volume.
258
opportunity would be given to the House to discuss it.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that this was a matter of the greatest importance affecting the procedure of the House, and in a few short sentences he would try and make the position quite clear. The Government in the usual course introduced the Supplementary Estimates under thirty-five different heads. Fourteen of these were discussed and disposed of. The fifteenth, the Vote for the Stationery Office, was at present under discussion. Now the Government were withdrawing the whole of the Supplementary Estimates, including the Vote under discussion, and were substituting a new Supplementary Estimate, not for a series of sums, each sum affecting a separate Department, but for one sum of nearly £1,000,000 covering the whole of the Departments. As far as the Civil Service Estimates were concerned, was this course not without precedent? Did the right, hon. Gentleman propose to inaugurate this new practice without any discussion whatever? Under the old practice each sum was voted for a particular Department, and no portion of one sum voted for one Department could be spent on another Department. If the whole amount was voted in one sum, however, would it not be competent to spend the whole of it on one Department or on two or three Departments? This being quite a new innovation in practice, did not the right hon. Gentleman think it right that the House should have a full opportunity of discussing it?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The hon. Gentleman has with great clearness put several questions, and I will endeavour to answer them. One was whether the form now adopted of presenting the Estimate would enable one Department to spend money intended by the House for another Department— whether, in fact, the control over the allocation of the money would not be lost. In my opinion, no such consequence will follow from the change. The allocation of the money will be as strictly limited by law as if the ordinary form of the Estimates had been main-

259
tained. The hon. Member has also asked whether there is any precedent for such a procedure in the Civil Service Estimates. I do not know whether the hon. Member will call it a precedent, but there is the precedent of Excess Votes. The analogy between the two cases is close; Votes belonging to different Departments and dealt with by different Ministers are put together from the Chair as one sum.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: J asked the right hon. Gentleman not whether there was any analogous case, but whether there was any precedent in Civil Service Supplementary Estimates.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no precedent. The change has been made broadly in the interests of the discussion of the Estimates. The whole of the Estimates must be obtained in order to introduce the Appropriation Bill on this day week. I propose that the whole of the Parliamentary time between now and Monday, except Wednesday, shall be devoted to the discussion of the Estimates. Is it not better that the House should devote this time to the best purposes of debate, rather than that it should be engaged in voting time after time upon matters of relatively small importance, as we have, I regret to say, been doing? Undoubtedly the effect of the change will be to enable the whole question to be put as one from the Chair; but this will not preclude Amendments from being moved, nor will it curtail debate on any item in the Estimates. I think that if he will reflect for one moment, the hon. Member will see that the change is very much in the interests of full discussion in the House. In addition to the fundamental and important change about which questions have been asked, there have been two or three subsidiary and minor changes. The first is that I have omitted a Vote which might legitimately have given rise to some debate—the subsidy for the Viceroy of Wu-sung. It is not technically necessary to take that Vote on the Supplementary Estimates. Then there has been introduced the Estimate for the Queen's funeral, and I have altered the order of the Estimates so that the Votes
260
which I believe excite most interest will not be put off by debates on minor matters.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: But the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to what opportunity will be afforded the House for discussing this innovation.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should hope that after my explanation there will not be any great desire on the part of the House to discuss the innovation. The circumstances are altogether special, and special means must be taken to meet them. The circumstances are well known to the House, and I hope that without further discussion the reasonableness of the course adopted will commend itself to all hon. Members.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it appeared to him that this was simply a new kind of closure, invented to meet the temporary and passing exigencies of the present session, owing entirely to the late date at which Parliament was called together. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether, having invented it, be could not carry his ingenuity a little further and give the House an opportunity of saying whether or not it approved his action. Surely they were entitled to such an opportunity.
SIR JOHN BRUNNER: If an Amendment were moved to an item low down on the list, would that preclude any discussion on items preceding it?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)said the effect of the change would be to concentrate discussion on one particular topic, and it would do away with the system of one Amendment one Vote.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have been asked whether my ingenuity cannot find time for the discussion of this change. I am glad the hon. Member for Dundee refers to it as ingenuity, but I must remind him that the most ingenious man cannot turn one hour into two

261
or find time where it does not exist. It is no doubt in the power of the House to take time to discuss this change out of the available time for the discussion of the Estimates. If it is not in order to move the adjournment of the House, no doubt the question might be raised on the Estimates.
*MR. SPEAKER: There is some analogy in what occurred in 1890, when the late Mr. Smith laid Estimates on the Table of the House, and the number of Votes was reduced from, I think, 157 to 10G, without any previous notice, by consolidating a number of the Votes. I remember that on that occasion an hon. Member asked whether he might move the adjournment of the House, and Mr. Speaker Peel informed him that the proper course would be to move to report Progress when the House went into Committee, and to raise the question in that way.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The case which you have put before the House is not an exact precedent. It was a case where the number of Votes was reduced from 137 to something less, and a few of them were consolidated. This is a case where the remainder of the Supplementary Votes have been withdrawn, including one actually under discussion, and they have been consolidated in one sum which covers them all. In those circumstances I would ask permission to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely,"the substitution for the Civil Service Estimates previously presented of a Supplementary Estimate for one sum covering all the various Departments, contrary to the uniform practice of the House.
*MR, SPEAKER: I shall not prevent the hon. Member from discussing the change. On the occasion to which I have referred, Mr. Speaker Peel recommended the hon. Member to deal with the matter in Committee, but I did not understand him to rule that it could not be done by moving the adjournment of the House. Has the hon. Member the leave of the House?
*SIR: E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Before the hon. Gentle-
262
man moves his motion I wish to ask a question with regard to the answer just made by the First Lord of the Treasury. I understood him to say that under the Vote in its new form if a reduction was moved regarding one of the subjects which come towards the end of the Vote under discussion, that would cut out an Amendment upon an earlier item. I wish to ask whether it is not a fact that any Amendment moved must be an Amendment upon the whole sum, and whether it will not be entirely in the hands of the Speaker or Chairman to decide as to who speaks and in what order.
*MR. SPEAKER: I cannot anticipate the ruling of the Chair, and the ruling of the Chairman of Committees on the subject is a matter entirely for him. Has the hon. Member for Waterford the leave of the House?
The pleasure of the House having been signified—
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The first complaint which I have to make with reference to the action of the Government in this matter is that they are endeavouring to initiate an entirely new practice of far-reaching importance, almost, I would say, by stealth, but certainly without any notice whatever to anybody. I venture to say that in the whole House of Commons on both sides of the House there were probably not a dozen men who came down here this afternoon, who knew that this change was to be attempted to-day. These revised Supplementary Estimates were, it is true, circulated on Saturday, but, without any notice of any sort or kind which hon. Members would have been able to take cognisance of, this new rule has been sprung upon the House. I do not know what view the Liberal Members of this House take upon this matter, but it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are going steadily step by step along the road at the end of which absolute suppression of independent criticisms of the Estimates is the goal. If the right hon. Gentleman is allowed now with regard to Supplementary Estimates covering all the branches of the service to introduce it as one sum so that only one divi-

263
sion can be taken upon it, discussion upon the different items will be destroyed, because although the right hon. Gentleman pointed out to us that we might move Amendments upon, each item, the next moment he had to admit that if an Amendment was moved upon some item low down in the list, that would preclude the possibility of moving any Amendment upon an item higher up in the list. If the right hon. Gentleman is permitted by the House of Commons to do this against the protest of a little group of hon. Members on the Irish benches—and I say that all the independent Members of this House, who desire to safeguard their rights and liberties should join in this protest—the next thing that will happen will be that on some future day you will find a Minister coming down to this House, and, not in a Supplementary Estimate, but in the original Estimate, proposing one sum to cover the whole series of services. This question affects the right of discussion in this House and the right of individual criticism by independent Members, and I respectfully submit that it ought to be considered solely and, indeed, entirely apart from the immediate needs or circumstances of the moment. The House of Commons, by authorising a practice like this, is establishing a precedent for all time. There may be Members of this House—probably there is a majority of Members of this House—who have such confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and in his having control of the financial concerns of the Empire, that they do not fear putting enormous powers into his bands. But they ought to think of the future, and it is impossible for them to foretell when the time may come when there may be in office a Government that they do not trust, and when there may be upon the Treasury Bench English statesmen controlling the financial affairs of the Empire, into whose bands they do not desire to have those enormous powers put. What would be the position of this House of Commons in the future if on the original Estimates for the year a procedure of this kind happened to be followed? It is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this would never be done. I say that by sanctioning this new procedure on
264

Supplementary Estimates you are creating something that will be quoted some day as a precedent for going further, ft is a fatal practice from the point of view of the House of Commons itself, and from the point of view of independent Members. It is fatal to acquiesce without a protest in this continual encroachment upon our rights and liberties. So far as the Irish Members are concerned, we who come here from Ireland are bound to protest in the strongest and most effective way against this continual deprivation of those rights which we enjoy of discussing the government of our country. One effect of this new rule will be to abolish the possibility of divisions. On the Supplementary Estimates under the old practice every individual Vote is put separately from the Chair, and the discussion on that Vote is confined to that subject; and if there happen to be any Members of the House who are dissatisfied with the undertakings and explanations given by the Government they are entitled to register their disapproval by voting against the item in the lobby. That is all to be changed now, and these thirty-five different heads of Supply are all to be grouped together. There will be a general discussion on the whole Vote, and when one Member gets up and discusses one Department, the Member who immediately follows him will raise the discussion on another Department, and thus destroy any possibility of effective debate on any Department. Some hon. Member who is lucky enough to be called upon early in the discussion may move an Amendment dealing with some particular Department in which he happens to be interested, and will raise, perhaps, a question of £10, £20, or perhaps £70. If such a case happened, and the Member called upon by the Chairman moves an Amendment, that would preclude any single opportunity of discussion on any of the items that appeared on the list before it, although the subject tinder discussion might be the very last one of the thirty-five items. I think it is discreditable that a change of this magnitude should be brought on in this way without notice. It is conduct similar to what I characterised on a former occasion as Parliamentary sharp practice, and I do not believe any Government has anything to gain by it. If an

265
alteration in the procedure of the House of Commons, so vast and far-reaching in its importance, is to be, proposed by the Government, it ought to be done openly and aboveboard, after due notice has been given to the House of Commons, and after adequate discussion. This is an attempt to sneak through unobserved, and to smuggle this new practice into the orders and rules of this House, and to cheat the great bulk of hon. Members of their rights and privileges of debate.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I ought, perhaps, to tell the hon. Member that I took care on Saturday to inform the Leader of the Opposition of what was going to be done.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): He is not everybody.
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: No: but still it can hardly be said that I tried to sneak it through, if I told the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not believe in the efficacy of hard words. If the right hon. Gentleman objects to the words I have used I will withdraw them.
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: No, I do not object to them.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The Leader of the Opposition is not in the House, but his colleagues are there, and two of them have expressed dissent from what is proposed by the light hon. Gentleman.
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. I never suggested for a moment that the Leader of the Opposition concurred. I was only dealing with the question of informing him.
MR. JOHN REDMOND:I would like very much to ask some of the hon. members of the Opposition upon that Front Bench, whether the notice conveyed to the Leader of the Opposition went any further, and whether it was conveyed to all the gentlemen upon that bench or to their followers. I venture to say, without fear of being contradicted, that
266
so far as the bulk of the Liberal Members of this House are concerned, they never heard of this thing until now. [Opposition cheers.] Those cheers justify me in saying that so far as the bulk of the Liberal party is concerned it is true to say that an attempt has been made to smuggle this new rule unobserved into the Orders of this House. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's idea of notice. No one will contend that for this most important change, this most far-reaching change, in the rules of the House it is sufficient notice to give on a Saturday afternoon a private intimation to the Leader of the Opposition that it is intended to raise this question on the following Monday. Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that according to the rules of fairness and courtesy in this House notices of changes of this kind are always given publicly in the House, and that sufficient time is always allowed to elapse to enable hon. Members to consider what action they will take? With reference to the Leader of the Opposition this may have been done, but so far as the Irish party are concerned they got no notice at all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thought we were so simple and ignorant of the forms of this House that this innovation would slip through without our notice. If so, he underrated our vigilance. I confess for myself quite candidly that I knew nothing about this till I came down to the blouse this afternoon, because I had been away in the country, and did not receive my Parliamentary Papers, but if I had received them I should not quite have appreciated what had occurred. I find that my own countrymen were more vigilant than myself, and they were quite alive to the importance of the step about to be taken. I protest about an effort being made to put this new practice into operation without any notice at all to the Irish party. The right hon. Gentleman will gain nothing now. or at any time in the session, by this effort to smuggle in this new practice and this new rule to suppress freedom of discussion upon the Estimates. I do not know how far the protest I desire to make will be supported by independent Members of the House generally. It will be supported, at any rate, by the entire body of the Irish Members, and

267
so far as we are concerned, if it will be any comfort to the right hon. Gentleman, I may say to him that this new practice which he is trying to smuggle into the rules of the House will be a renewed incentive to us to scrutinise every item of Supply whether it affects Ireland or not, and to use every form and every rule and power we possess to prevent the possibility of the most important work of this House being stifled. One advantage the right hon. Gentleman has gained is that we must naturally speak here without looking into the precedents and without preparation. That probably has saved me some trouble and the House of Commons some time, because hon. Members might have had to listen to a much longer speech from me if proper notice had been given. What right has the Government to propose a change of this kind without giving us sufficient opportunities to look up the precedents and to come down here armed with the knowledge of what the House has done in similar cases in the past? I asked the right hon. Gentleman if there was any precedent for such a course, and ho had to admit that there was not. No precedent for this vast and far-reaching change ! Yet he comes down and absolutely endeavours to put it into operation without a word of explanation or apology, and without fortifying himself by oven the precedents of analogous cases. There never was a case in my experience of this House when the adjournment of a question was more necessary. I do not want the House to be adjourned; I want this question to be adjourned, so that we may have a proper opportunity of looking into the precedents and practice of the past in order intelligently to discuss the matter. I make the motion "That this House do now adjourn," because that is the only form in which I can make my protest. My desire is to call the attention of the House of Commons to what is being done, and to ask that in fairness to the House the consideration of this new Supplementary Estimate should be adjourned. If this is not done this new Estimate will come before us to-night, because I am told that, again in violation of the practice of the House as far as I know it, on the Navy Estimates the Secretary to the Admiralty will make his statement with
268
the Speaker in the Chair, and that the consideration of these Estimates will then be immediately adjourned. That is a violation perpetrated with the sole object of turning one of the recent ballots into a farce. We had a ballot for places for moving an Amendment on the question of the Speaker leaving the Chair on the Navy Estimates, and the first place happened to be won by an Irish Member, but in order to prevent him having the advantage of his good fortune this violation of ordinary practice is to be committed. The whole proceeding is most discreditable, and if for nothing else but the attempt which has been made to rush and smuggle this thing through, and to hoodwink Members of the House, I think a most determined protest should be made. With that object in view, I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
MR. LOUGH: I rise to second the motion. I cannot but think that if the Leader of the House will give this matter a little thought he will, before the debate goes too far, reconsider the course he has taken. I do not suppose it will be too late to omit these new figures at the beginning of the Estimate, and then proceed in the ordinary way. There could not be a moment in our proceedings when a violent change of this kind was more inopportune. On Friday last we granted quite twenty millions of Supply. An arrangement—most Members thought a harmonious arrangement —to facilitate the Government was agreed to by general consent, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman got all the Supply he required for the Army until the end of the financial year. I. should have thought, after such an arrangement, that no other step of this kind could be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has arranged these Estimates in the way he thought the House desired to discuss them. I admit there is in the arrangement an attempt to meet the views of the House, in putting, first the Vote for which we have been looking for weeks past. But there is. this difficulty: the right hon. Gentleman cannot secure that the discussion should actually take place on that particular item. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that. Any Vote may be

269
taken, and a trifling point may cut out all the discussion on the most important Estimates. I would ask the House to look at these Estimates. The first three items are for three separate wars in three important dependencies of this country. There has been no discussion in the House with regard to any one of those three wars, and by the adoption of the change now made all discussion may be prevented. In the first war thousands of lives have been sacrificed. We have no particulars about the war in Somali-land. There is also the war in Uganda. There could not be an occasion upon which a violent innovation of this kind? could be more out of place, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter. I admit the difficulty is very great, as the Government must get their money this week, but I really think there are other steps open to the Leader of the House to secure his end. The discussions last week were not carried on in any unreasonable spirit, and it is a bad reward to take such a big step as is now contemplated.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. John Redmond.)
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The hon. Members who have spoken have taken rather different ground in addressing themselves to the change which has been made in the form of this Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member for Waterford took exception to it in the main because it was introduced, as he said, by stealth, because it was an attempt to smuggle through a great change without bringing it to the notice of Members of the House, and because it would form a dangerous precedent for the future. My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury interrupted the hon. Member, and pointed out that he had himself taken the trouble to call the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to the change which was to be made, and I do not think any followers of the right hon. Gentleman have a right to take exception.
MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE (Leeds, W.): May I point out to the hon.
270
Gentleman that the letter only reached the Leader of the Opposition on Saturday, and, so far as I am concerned, I learned of it only this morning.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Estimates were circulated on Saturday, and on the same day my right hon. friend went out of his way to call the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to the change. I do not criticise the action of the right hon. Gentleman in the least, and I do not wish to imply that he or his colleagues accepted the change. My right hon. friend has said that the right hon. Gentleman did not accept it, but the fact that notice was given is incompatible with the charge of the hon. Member for Waterford. But the hon. Member says, "Oh, but there was no notice to the Irish party."
MR. JOHN REDMOND: To the House generally. My charge was that the universal practice of giving notice— namely, public notice, which would in the ordinary way reach every Member of the House—was broken.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That practice was not broken. I do not wish to contradict the hon. Member rudely, but notice was given by the circulation of the Estimates. Those Estimates were in the hands of Members or at their addresses, comparatively early on Saturday morning. The hon. Member has himself answered his complaint. He says there was no notice, that he was out of town, and that he was not aware of the change, but in the next breath he told us. with some pride, that his colleagues around him had been more alert than he, and that they were perfectly well aware of the change. If they were perfectly aware of the change, what is the use of complaining that notice was not given? The hon. Gentleman went on to say that this would form a very dangerous precedent, which some day might be, extended to other matters and seriously cripple the control of the House over expenditure. I confess I am somewhat surprised to hear from that quarter of the House the kind of argument known as the "thin edge of the wedge," which is so often the object of the denunciation of hon. Members opposite.

271
They complain sometimes that hon. Members on this side of the House object to a change for fear of the consequences which may follow; they then ridicule that fear, and we are adjured never to hesitate to do what is right in itself, because some unreasonable person may ask us to do something which is wrong in consequence. Both hon. Members who have spoken have very much overrated the importance of the change we have made, and have misunderstood its exact effect. The question of the form in which the Estimates should be presented has in past years, on more than one occasion, been before the House and before the Public Accounts Committee. If hon. Members will consult the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee they will find that what they lay stress upon is the right of the House to see that the money voted for particular purposes is applied to those purposes, that the appropriation of the money voted by the House is complete, and that the control exercised by the Treasury in the first place, and by the Public Accounts Committee and Parliament in the second place, is not lessened by any change in the form of the accounts. We have taken care in presenting this Estimate that the appropriation of the money should not be affected, and that the responsibility of the individual accounting officers should not be affected by anything we have done. Against every sum in this schedule the House has before it the name of the office and an indication of the accounting officer who will be responsible for the administration of the Vote, and no greater power to transfer money from one object to another, or from one subject to another, is given either to the Treasury or to any other Government Department than it at present possesses. If that is realised, hon. Members will see that there is no principle at stake in regard to the control of this House over finance, and that the question resolves itself into one merely of convenience—of the way in. which the time at our disposal can best be disposed of and allocated to the business we have to perform. The hon. Member for West Islington alluded to the first two Votes, and said they raised very important questions in connection with wars which had not yet been discussed, and which the House was entitled to discuss. It is exactly

272
in order to meet that that the Government have made this change. Those Votes are in Class 5. and as printed, and as they would have been taken under the first Supplementary Estimates they would come more than half-way down the list of Votes yet to be gone through. Therefore, with the very limited time at our disposal which can be allocated to the discussion of these Supplementary Estimates—[An HON. MEMBER: Why?] Because, as the Leader of the House has already explained, the Committee of Supply must be confined to this week, and Report taken on Monday next, if the law is to be complied with. Therefore, with the very limited time at our disposal, it was not only possible, but probable, if we continued to take the discussion, of the Votes in the order in which they stood on the Paper, that these particular Votes would not have been discussed at all, but we should have continued to spend our time on far less important matters.
MR. LOUGH: One cannot move a reduction.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is mistaken; a reduction can be moved in respect of any item which stands in the Vote, and we have given, to the House full information as to all the items and all the details of the items included in this lump sum of £893,000. Let me call the attention of the House to what has happened. In Committee of Supply up till to-day on the Supplementary Estimates we have already spent three days; and the portion of time we have still to spend upon them in their new form is the greater part of to-day and to-morrow. We shall have another day on Report, making not less than five or five and a half days in all for their discussion this year. I believe that on no single occasion during the last ten years have the corresponding Votes, together with their Report, taken four days, and only on four occasions have they taken as much as three days. [An HON. MEMBER: They were never so large.] I find that in 1899–1900 there were seventeen Civil Service Votes, in 1898–99 twenty-four Votes, and in 1897–98 fifteen Votes.
MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.): What about 1893?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have not the references with me for that year, but for the last three years there were respectively seventeen, twenty-four, and fifteen Civil Service Votes, and in not one of those years did they occupy more than three days. Nor can it be said that the subjects in those years were less important than this year. I find that in 1899–1900 there came on the question of the purchase of the Niger Company, and in 1897–8 the special grants both for Uganda and East Africa in respect to the disturbed condition of those two countries, and especially the payment of compensation to the French missionaries in Uganda—a subject which excited, very properly, great public interest. I point out that the Mouse is having this year more time for the discussion of the Civil Service Estimates than we have had in any of the ten preceding years. I would also call the attention of the House to the manner in which the time that has already been allocated to the purpose is being used. The Supplementary Navy Vote of three millions took part of a day. and the Supplementary Army Estimate—the importance of which nobody will deny—took half a day. But we have given two whole days to the consideration of the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates, and I will say that not a single Vote discussed on these days was of any special importance— |HON. MEMBER'S on the Irish benches: Oh !]—or raised any question of real novelty or interest to the community at large.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONwas understood to ask why the Government had not foreseen that these questions would be raised.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member thinks that we ought to have been able to foretell last November or October twelve months what the price of coal would be during the past twelve months, or that we should have foreseen that there would he an opening of Parliament in state which required special provision to be made. I say nobody can pretend that two days were required to discuss these Votes, or that it was in the interest of the House itself, or of hon. Members who take an interest
274
in important questions still to be discussed, to go on as we have done to-day. We have put down the Estimate in a new form, it is true, but we have put in the forefront the Votes which, from the notices on the Paper and the information which has reached us in the usual way, appeared to be the ones which hon. Members most wished to be discussed, and I had hoped that this arrangement would give fair opportunities for discussion. The hon. Member for Water-ford complained that he had not had more notice of this change in order that he might have searched for precedents. This was unnecessary, because he has already been told by the First Lord of the Treasury that there are no precedents for bringing forward the Supplementary Estimates in this particular form, and therefore I think the time he might have given to research and discussion afterwards would have been fruitless. But there is a very close analogy—that of the Army and Navy Supplementary Estimates, which are invariably introduced in this form, under which there is nothing to prevent questions of even less importance than are involved in the Civil Service Votes being raised. A second analogy is the Excess Civil Service Votes, which are taken by one resolution: and there is also the analogy of the Vote on Account, where exactly the same form is employed. I beg to call attention again to the fact that, while the form in which these Estimates are put to the House is altered, the responsibility of the officials in charge of the administration is not abated, 'and that no greater latitude of appropriation is given to the Government than they already enjoy and use under the existing rules. When that fact is really understood, the House will see that the change is one that raises no great principle, but that it indeed offers the best chance of reasonable discussion on those Votes on which debate is wished. I trust the House will now hasten to close this not very profitable discussion, and that hon. Members will reserve all remarks that might be made for serious consideration until we reach Committee of Supply.
SIR ROBERT REID: The step which has been

275
taken in altering the form of these Estimates is admittedly without precedent. It is, to my mind, still more significant that the practice which is now to be applied to the Civil Service Estimates has hitherto been, as the hon. Gentleman has said, applied to the Army and Navy Supplementary Estimates. Now, objection was most properly taken both to the manner and the matter of the change. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House told us that the Leader of the Opposition had received on Saturday a communication of the intention of the Government on this matter. I am very sorry that my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition is confined to his house and unable to be here this afternoon; but I am able to inform the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, if he was not aware of it before, that the Leader of the Opposition strongly disapproves of this attempt to alter the practice of the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said so.
SIR ROBERT REID: The right hon. Gentleman is particularly emphatic. I listened to every word he said, and what I have to complain of is that he did not profess that disapproval had been expressed by my right hon. friend. I say that there have been expressions of strong disapproval. I am not at liberty to speak for my right hon. friend, but I am certain that he would not have been prepared to say that notice of the change given to himself was sufficient in a matter of this kind, of which there ought to have been public notice. I myself cannot help thinking that this is a matter in which public notice should have been given. The only public notice given, so to speak, was by a mere circular sent out on Saturday morning. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is in the habit of staying in London from Saturday to Monday and studying the Parliamentary Papers issued on Saturday, on Saturday and Sunday; but a good many of us are not in that habit. And I maintain that notice on Saturday is somewhat tardy and inadequate. I come now to the question of the matter of the change. One result has been disclaimed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He says he
276
has informed himself that it will not enable the money to be applied in any different manner to what it would have been under the former form. Very well, suppose that is so; but the result remains that the whole thing can be ended by one closure instead of by twenty or more. A second result is, that instead of there being a regular and orderly discussion Vote by Vote, a detached and very often a confused discussion will be raised. The Chairman may think it proper to call one Member or another without being informed as to what subject that Member is going to speak about; and further, if a reduction is moved in regard to one of the later Votes, and accepted by the Chairman, that would preclude any subsequent reduction being moved on a prior Vote.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that that objection applies pro tanto to any individual Vote in the present form, and that it is the of habit the Chairman, bearing that in mind, to give an opportunity to hon. Members before accepting an Amendment on a late Vote to move an Amendment on an earlier one.
SIR ROBERT REID: Within the limited range of the Army and Navy Votes the rule does not apply, and now it is to be applied to Civil Service Votes, which travel over a vast array of subjects —some of great importance, and some of which have never before appeared on the Estimates. In my humble opinion, this House is gradually becoming a Ministerial chamber, and not the House of Commons. Step by step the old privileges and facilities enjoyed by Members of the House of Commons, in their character as Members of the House of Commons representing their constituencies, are being curtailed and diminished in every direction. This is only OIK; of the many changes which have taken place within the last four or five years. I think it is a serious one, and it shocks persons like myself who may claim to be old Parliamentarians. For my part, if the motion goes to a division I shall have great pleasure in recording my vote against the change.
*MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I hope this proposed arrange-

277
ment will not be persevered with, and that my right hon. friend, seeing the very general feeling of the House, will ! reconsider the determination he has come to. My hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury fails to appreciate the objections to the change proposed, of which only one individual—no doubt a distinguished Member of the House— received intimation.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdissented.
*MR. JAMES LOWTHER: At any rate, no public notice whatever was given, and only the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition received a private notice. I was indebted solely to the private information given me by one of the Opposition whips. When I came down this afternoon I said to him, "I suppose this will be a quiet evening," when he told me that he understood that an important question would be raised on the new form in which the Supplementary Estimates were to be presented to the House. I went to the Vote Office for details, and with the practical object of searching for precedents. I venture to say that there is absolutely no precedent for so materially altering the practice of Parliament behind the backs of hon. Members of this House. What does this amount to I We have already had every opportunity and facility taken away from individual and non-official Members for bringing on questions in which they are interested. Tuesdays are practically gone. Fridays are devoted to Supply; and now we are told: "Oh, never mind; you have forfeited your Tuesdays and lost your Fridays, but we have given you favourable opportunities for discussing in Supply anything which you have reason to complain of. And in addition to that, the debates on the Supplementary Estimates are not to be counted in the twenty-three days devoted to Supply," but now we find that so far from our being enabled to discuss the details of the Votes the whole lot may be put in a lump from the Chair without a syllable of discussion. Usually when a change of importance has been made in our procedure, it has formed the subject, not only of debate,
278
but on most occasions the investigation of a Committee of some strength; but in this case we suddenly find we have no voice whatever in so vital an alteration of our procedure, and must sit down without expressing ourselves upon the passage of a rule which strikes in the direction of limiting the criticism of a number of Estimates which may all be put to the House in one Vote. Under this rule one subject may be started upon which nine-tenths of the House of Commons are in no way interested, some dull matter, such as education, which bores nearly everyone to death. In fact it is notorious that the personages who were somewhat irreverently spoken of by Sir Stafford Northcote as "the bonnets'' are instigated to introduce such topics, and when that subject has drawn to an end the rest of the Vote may be closured. It seems to me that if we pass this rule we abandon one of the great functions of the House of Commons. This is not a small change, but a vast interference with the privileges of the Members of this House, and I strongly protest against it.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that the evil of this rule, if passed, would be that very important matters might be dealt with without any attention having been directed to them, and without anyone being the wiser. Such a rule ought not to be brought forward in this manner, but only after due and proper notice had been given to the whole House. He regretted that, owing to the illness of the Leader of the Opposition, that question had not been raised on behalf of the whole House. He complained that it was almost impossible to tie the Government down to any promise with regard to this not being made a precedent. Why were a certain number of days to be allotted to the discussion of the Estimates, if the House was not to be allowed to discuss them? There was no real knowledge on the part of Members of the House of the change which this rule implied. It was perfectly true that a revised Estimate came on the previous Saturday, but there was nothing in the revised Estimate to attract the attention of the House to the change,

279
and the overwhelming majority of the Members of the House would not notice from that revised Estimate that any change was being made in the procedure. One great difficulty presented by this change taking place in the discussion of the Estimates was that it allowed any inconvenient Estimate to be absolutely withdrawn from discussion. If the rule passed it could be closured upon the Committee stage, and again upon Report without any discussion being raised. If the suggestion thrown out on a former occasion by the Leader of the House that he would be willing to agree to a Committee being appointed to consider the order in which the Estimates were to be presented—a Committee in which all sections of this House should be represented—it would not remove the difficulty of the operation of the closure, but it would limit the difficulties experienced. It was not a matter to be decided by the Members on the two Front Benches alone, but by the entire House, and if the matter was carried through now, there was a danger that the House of Commons would lose all control over Supply.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid perhaps the Leader of the House did not imagine that there was a strong feeling with regard to this surprising innovation on that side of the House. It would be some alleviation if his right hon. friend could give them an assurance that this proposal was only made in view of the exceptional circumstances of the present occasion and was not intended to be made a precedent. He could not conceive, if it were intended to be a precedent, that it should be done in this manner.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear. hear.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I may take it, then, that it is not intended as a precedent?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Sir. what human being ever suggested it was?
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid he understood, then, that it was not intended to be a precedent, but was only made in view of the very exceptional circumstances. But even if that were the
280
object, he thought it might have been done in a somewhat different manner, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman that some proper consideration might be given to the subject by a Committee selected from all sections of the House. A Select Committee was the only means by which they might come to anything like an agreement as to the procedure on important questions of Supply.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford. N.): The Leader of the House evidently shares the opinion of his distinguished relative, that Parliamentary administration is rather a nuisance. The right hon. Gentleman has done more this session to revolutionise Parliamentary methods by side winds than has ever been done before. To-day we have brought before us the most extraordinary arrangement for the discussion of the Estimates the House has ever seen, an arrangement which, would never have been tolerated by the House in years gone by. The Secretary to the Treasury told us that this arrangement was conceived for the convenience of debate, and that the form in which this Estimate was brought up would enable hon. Members to discuss any matter in which they were interested much more easily than would have been possible under the old system. Here is a long list of nineteen Votes, the last of which is for a sum of £f0, while the entire list totals up to nearly £1,000,000. As I understand, it would be possible for me to move to reduce that last Vote by anything up to £10, and to prevent any other Member discussing either of the eighteen more important matters which come before it. That shows that instead of facilitating debate, this arrangement is only the closure in another form. The hon. Member for Waterford has taken the lead in the protest he has made on behalf of the rights of private Members, and he spoke naturally as the representative of Members from Ireland. There is a point of very great importance to us in this arrangement of Votes. If this precedent is established, what is there to prevent the Irish Government coming down with the whole of the Irish Estimates in this form, with some little ridiculous Vote at the end, so that we should be allowed only one division and practically one discussion? My hon.

281
friend has performed a most important public service in calling attention to this matter, and as far as we are concerned we shall oppose the proposal by every means in our power, because we foresee the extraordinary inroads it may make upon the rights of private Members, and the dangerous precedent it will set for future action.
LORD HUGH CECIL: I rise to say a few words in protest against the suggestion that the feeling on this side of the House is entirely adverse to the action of the Government in this matter. I admit that there are warm feelings on this side as to the way in which the business of the House is conducted, but they do not point in the direction indicated by my hon. friend the Member for East Somerset. The feeling is that a very great deal too much consideration is shown to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and certainly we should not throw obstacles in the way of the Government when they are doing something, at any rate, to ensure that the views of the majority should prevail in the House. It is said that sufficient notice was not given. But these Estimates are not the first Order on the Paper: therefore the time occupied with the Navy Estimate will be available for hon. Members to acquaint themselves with the particulars of the Estimates affected by this arrangement. I can understand that Members want to know when a subject is coming forward in order that they may look up their facts and prepare the speeches they intend to deliver, but everybody knew that Civil Service Estimates might be discussed to-night, and, for the purposes of their speeches, it makes no difference whether the subjects are in one or main Estimates. Therefore, for all purposes of debate, the notice was ample. I cannot myself see why the question of notice is so important. Reference has been made to Uganda. Hon. Members will, of course, spend the same time in getting up their speeches with regard to Uganda, whether the subject is discussed on a separate Vote or as an item of the whole Vote.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: That is not the kind of notice to which we were referring. We were referring to the
282
notice which, in our opinion, ought to have been given of a fundamental change in the procedure of the House.
LORD HUGH CECIL: However much notice was given, could hon. Members, have made a more effective protest than, they have done?
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Then do away with the House of Commons altogether.
LORD HUGH CECIL: This is. in fact, a great innovation in the true interests of legitimate debate. What are the peculiar circumstances of the moment? The most peculiar circumstance is that the Government are not bringing forward any legislation whatever. The most factious Opposition desires only, I should have thought, to impede the Government in doing that of which they disapprove. The object of obstruction, as far as it is legitimate at all, is to put off the Government s proposals, to drive them back, and make them more or less impossible of achievement. That question does not arise on this occasion at all. These Estimates must, in accordance with the law. be agreed to by the 31st March. Therefore, obstruct as much as we please, we cannot possibly prevent the Government doing anything they choose after Easter. This arrangement cannot form any precedent for innovations in procedure for facilitating legislation which, in the opinion of any section of the House, is of a dangerous or revolutionary character. In 1893, as far as I can learn from a study of the newspapers, the object of the long discussions on the Supplementary Estimates was to postpone the second reading of the Home Rule Bill. That is a case utterly remote and different from the present case. It would, indeed, be a very serious matter if the Government were to take special facilities, not merely to comply with the law as regards financial business, but to facilitate their own legislative proposals. That would be a very dangerous and serious innovation, but this is nothing of the kind. This is merely an emergency measure which must be adopted unless the law is to be disobeyed. If this alteration were not made, the only alternative would be putting all the Votes from the Chair at a given

283
hour, or to have all-night sittings. Is it I suggested that the present method gives less facilities for discussion? The whole matter is as plain as a pikestaff. If there is only a certain amount of time to be given to the subject, you must take measures to get the subject disposed of in the time, and this measure is the least offensive and oppressive that could be devised. The truth is that the House of Commons is in the position of wanting— I was going to say to eat its cake and have it; but really the position is that of wishing to have a cake which the Irish Members have already devoured. I feel the warmest commiseration for hon. Members on either side of the House whose only desire is for legitimate discussion of the Supplementary Estimates, but the violence of their denunciations should be directed against, not the Government, but the hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who have abused the opportunities of debate. If hon. Gentlemen above the gangway opposite wish to see the business of the House conducted in such a way that all that they desire to say should have a proper opportunity for utterance, their best course is to co-operate with the Government to the utmost in suppressing the exuberant verbosity of hon. Members below the gangway.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (Norfolk, N.): As I was engaged for many years in the preparation of these Estimates, I have some experience of the manner in which they are put together and the object for which they are framed. I am perfectly ready to admit that it would not be possible to transfer money from one Vote to another, or even from one sub-head to another, without the approval of the Treasury, but I cannot imagine what advantage the Government think they will gain by this new method which they have introduced. It will be productive of very great inconvenience, especially to the Chair. The Treasury have always tried, by the arrangement of the Estimates into classes, Votes, and subheads, to afford the clearest possible information as to the subjects referred to; they have endeavoured to put those subjects together so as not to be too large or too small, and to present completely one subject in a compact form, so that the House might deal with and dispose of one
284
subject before it passed on to another. All that is done away with by this new plan. Under this arrangement one hon. Member may discuss the Colonial Office; if he does not move an Amendment by which the House is precluded from passing to another subject, the next speaker may deal with the Postal Service, and a third may speak about the Diplomatic and Consular Services, and so on. We should get into a most unbusiness-like discussion, without, as far as I can see, any compensation whatsoever. It is said we should get one closure motion instead of twenty. I do not believe we should get even that advantage, because it will be open to a Member to move a reduction of the Vote by £1, £2, £3, or £10, and the closure may be necessary on each. The Secretary to the Treasury says we had full notice of this change. I must confess that when I received this Paper on Saturday morning I looked through it very carefully, but with all my twenty-two years' experience at the Treasury I did not observe these few words at the beginning. I noticed the new arrangement of Votes. and I thought it a most excellent plan to put these important items in the forefront, but all that advantage is done away with by these few words at the beginning, which practically put all the items on the same line, so that there is no reason why we should discuss OTIC before another. I earnestly hope the Government will withdraw their scheme, and consent to introduce the Estimates in the old-fashioned and constitutional manner.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Warm protests have been made by various Members of the House in regard to the policy pursued by the Government in this matter, and so well defended by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury. But almost every speaker—I think I might say every speaker except one—has carefully refrained from making the slightest allusion to the governing consideration in the matter—namely, the position in which we find ourselves when we are face to face with Supplementary Estimates and the close of the financial year. The hon. Member who has just spoken based his appeal on his great experience at the Treasury, and he told us that in all that experience he had never known this course to be pursued. No,

285
Sir; it never has been pursued with regard to Supplementary Estimates, though it has with regard to Estimates of the other kind. But has my hon. friend, in the course of his experience at the Treasury, ever known the House apparently driving the Government—or driving itself, because I suppose it is particeps criminis —into a deliberate breach of the rules laid down by itself with regard to its financial business? My hon. friend has never known such a case, and therefore his experience gives no weight to his objection to a remedy proposed to meet so novel and serious a proceeding.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I have hardly ever known the House to be called together so late.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman by his interruption has brought us back, not for the first, second, or third time, to the excuse habitually urged by those who have nothing else to sac. The meeting on the 14th February was determined before it was possible for anyone to know the amount of the Supplementary Estimates, and, even if the amount had been known, would that date have been an improper one for us to have fixed? In other words, is the House really incapable of getting through the King's Speech and the necessary Estimates in the interval between 14th February and 31st March? I really cannot believe that that is the case. If such a scale of time is to be applied to all Parliamentary action. I can only say the sessions will have to be prolonged—a course, in my opinion, not to the advantage of either the comfort or the efficiency of the House. I have always been anxious to keep the session—I will not say within the limits of six months, but somewhere approaching that period, and I believe a six months session is quite enough considering the pressure at which we do our work; moreover, we had an autumn session, and, under all the circumstances. I do not think the 14th February was too late a date to fix for the opening of Parliament. But let us turn aside for a moment from the action of the Government in opening Parliament on the 14th February. and whether they were right or wrong in so doing. Does the House
286
really mean to affirm that between the 14th February and the 25th March we ought not to be able to get through all our financial business, provided the Government does not bring forward any substantial controversial legislation?
MR. JOHN REDMOND: It depends on the management of that business.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What does that vague assertion, which is so commonly hurled across the floor, mean? The hon. Member complains of my management of the business of the House. My management of the business of the House has consisted simply in putting down Supply night after night since 14th February.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: No.
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: In what has it consisted, then?
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I mean the constant irritation of unnecessarily moving the closure.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I see. It is the number of times I have moved the closure, is it? I will ask two questions on that. In the first place, where should we have been with regard to the Estimates if I had not moved the closure;. and, in the second place, where should we be on the 31st March if I had, as I should have had, to move the closure on every Vote before we could get the Supplementary Estimates?
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The Speaker objected to your moving it the other night.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How on earth we were to get the Supplementary Estimates within the limit of the law without the use of the closure I do not know. So much for this, if I may say so, thread-hare and absurd accusation with regard to meeting so late as 14th February. If we had met previously to that the hon. Gentlemen who now complain would have been the first to grumble because we met so early.
I now leave that, and come to the substance of this question. Are we guilty of an innovation which is, in the first place, dangerous, and, in the second

287
place, unnecessary, in the procedure of the House? Those are the two points to consider. If it is necessary, it really does not matter whether it is dangerous or not; that which is necessary is that which has to be done. But is it dangerous? I have been spoken of to-night, as I have been spoken of in previous debates, as if I was hostile to the full and free discussion of the Estimates. I venture to say that nobody in his heart believes that. No one has more anxiously shown his desire than I have both that there should be an adequate, time given to the discussion of the Estimates, and that the Estimates to be discussed should be as far as possible taken in the order of their importance, and I have passed a great many innovations in our rules having those two great ends in view. If I have—as I think I may claim that I have—shown my desire that the Estimates should be fully discussed, have I in this case been driven, whether under stress of real necessity or not, to a course which is in itself dangerous? It will be observed that hon. Members' imaginations reach forward to some future period when there shall be some unscrupulous Minister in power who will use this weapon for the suppression of the House at, large and for the throttling of discussion. But this weapon has always been, for what it is worth, in the possession of the Government of the day. I cannot believe that any unscrupulous Minister would be in the least degree influenced by the fact that, in the face of what I have shown to be a real necessity, who have, done with the Civil Service Estimates that which we have done with criticism, comment, or inconvenience in the case of the Army Estimates, the Navy Estimates, and Excess Votes. We have been told that one inconvenience of this method is that Members will jump from Vote to Vote, and that we shall have a miscellaneous and inconsequential, discussion. I hope that will not be the case. This Vote is framed exactly on the model of the Vote on Account, and I do not think the discussions on Votes on Account have gone on in an inconsequent way from one subject to another. In fact. I have known a whole evening to be devoted to the very first item. [ Hear, hear.] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear," but you cannot have it both ways.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: By arrangement the whole night was spent on the first item, but the rest were closured.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is mistaken. The, only arrangement was as to the order in which the first two items of the Vote on Account should be put down. The House chose to discuss the Education Vote for the whole of the evening. That is the affair of the House, and the House will be able in a similar manner if it choose—as I hope it will not choose—to spend its time on the first one, or two items in the Vote now presented. There is no danger in the course we have adopted, because it, is a course obviously and avowedly adopted in an emergency. The hon. Member for East Somersetshire wished to get a specific pledge or declaration from me. I thought I gave a specific pledge or declaration in reply to a question earlier in the evening. But if the hon. Member desires such a pledge—I should have thought it unnecessary—I will give it in the most unreserved fashion The only reason this course has been adopted is that we found ourselves driven off from day to day by the length of the discussion on the Civil Service and other Estimates until it was perfectly obvious that if we were to fulfil the law it would be only by the goodwill of those who have not shown up to the present any great anxiety that we should be able to fulfil it.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say what is the pledge he has unreservedly given?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The statement I made was that this is an emergency operation, and an. emergency operation alone. The House in dealing with a practical question ought to show itself a practical assembly. Everybody knows the situation in which we are placed and the methods by which it has been brought about. We need not bandy hard words as to what has taken place. Let us describe it as an intelligent interest in Estimates. That "intelligent interest in Estimates" has, for example, been shown with regard to a Vote of £5,000 caused entirely by the rise in the price of coal. That "intelligent

289
interest in Estimates" has been carried to such a point that that £5.000 was discussed for at least an hour or two in Committee, and, as if that left hon. Gentlemen unsatisfied, they discussed it for another hour and a half on Report.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Hear, hear.
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is quite right from his own point of view to be proud of the achievement. Yes, but you cannot have "intelligence'' carried to that point without clogging the whole machinery of Parliament. I am attacked because I do not find more opportunities for private Members. It is the" intelligence of private Members that puts me in the difficulty. It is this "intelligent interest," carried to the excess we have recently seen, which makes it impossible for me to leave Tuesdays for the discussion of abstract resolutions, and which makes the proposed arrangement of this Estimate absolutely necessary. What other course could I have taken? I assume we are all agreed that Supply must be concluded this week. That is the basis on which I start. Nobody will, at all events openly, say that they desire us to violate the statute and regulations laid down for our financial business. Very well. We have got before us— I am very unwilling to take Wednesday, because that day happens to be allocated to a Bill which excites a very great deal of interest: therefore, we have Monday Tuesday. Thursday, and Friday, with possibly Saturday, in which to dispose of Supply. In those days we have got to get the Speaker out of the Chair on Navy Estimates; we have got to get Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates; we have in addition to get nineteen further Votes of Supply. We have already got ten Votes, but they were of an utterly trivial and unimportant character, and raised no questions of real interest whatever. We have already obtained ten Votes, but. although they were of little interest, they occupied two long days. We have nineteen more Votes before us which are of far greater importance, and, in addition, the Navy Estimates, and for the consideration of these we have only four days, or,
290
with a Saturday sitting, five days. I do not believe that would be enough. If I do not misread the signs of "intelligent interest ', that has been shown in these Votes, there will be an Amendment moved to every one. Someone has suggested that we should manage by closure, but three divisions on each of these nineteen Votes would mean fifty-seven divisions, and I do not think it would be possible to get through those, divisions in less than twenty hours, or two normal Parliamentary days out of the five possible days at our disposal. I am not talking of debate, but only of walking through the lobbies. Am I to be told that, having submitted respectfully that calculation to the House, our existing rules of closure are sufficient to enable us to finish Supply satisfactorily with reasonable discussion even by Saturday evening? I am quite sure that any candid man will see that I have not over-estimated the difficulties I have endeavoured to describe. What other course remains besides the one we have adopted? I might have come down on Tuesday or Thursday and moved a rule similar to the rule made with regard to general Supply, declaring that at a given hour on Friday night or Saturday afternoon the Committee of Supply should be closed and all the various Votes taken in their order, and that a similar operation should apply to the Report of Supply. But I suppose we would have occupied a night in discussing such a proposal -[An HON. MEMBER: I hope so.]—and when we had discussed it I suppose it would have been necessary to bring forward a rule for shortening the divisions. These are two plans. Can anybody suggest a third except the one, I have adopted? There is no third.
MR. DALZIEL: By, not spending the time of the House in altering its rules.
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman supposes that he has suggested a plan for getting Committee of Supply finished this week. The House will see therefore, that the course we have adopted is one that has been absolutely forced upon us by the necessities of the situation. It is one

291
which I hope will prevent undue strain, but whether it causes undue strain or not it is the one that holds out more hope than any other plan that -we shall be able to finish Committee of Supply within the time contemplated. I hope that I have used no undue strength of language. I have stated the motives which have influenced our action, and I have justified to the best of my ability the course which, by the force of circumstances, we have taken. Do not let anybody suppose that I watch these proceedings, or their result, with satisfaction or with equanimity. I regard them as most serious. It was long ago pointed out—I think it was by Mr. Gladstone, but I am not sure—that one or two ingenious men devoting themselves to the consideration of the Estimates could keep the House occupied during the whole of the six months. You could not work these nineteen Votes by the closure. [An HON. MEMBER signified that they could. In order to meet the interruption just made let me change the form of my proposition. One or two ingenious gentlemen taking an intelligent interest in the Estimates would be in a position to compel the closure upon every Vote that was brought before the House, without the smallest difficulty and without any undue taxing of the rules. I think there were more than two ingenious gentlemen in the House who engaged in the intelligent discussion of the Estimates. The result was, of course, necessarily that, before the new rule came into force, Supply had become a perfect scandal, and no Government could allow it to in to fare in that way with the business of the House. We sat up night after night discussing Votes like the £5,000 Vote I have already mentioned. I hope that I the Supply rule has done something to cure this with regard to the main Estimates of the year. We have left the Supplementary Estimates exactly where they always stood, and hon. Members who have not been in the House before will have a very accurate idea of what used to go on in connection with the ordinary Estimates by seeing what has gone on during the last few days in connection with the Supplementary Estimates. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean has referred to the suggestion to appoint a Committee to consider the sequence of Votes to be taken in
292
ordinary Supply. That is a little outside the motion now before the House, but allow me to say that I think it would be of great advantage that there should be a Committee of this House to settle in the first place what proportion of our general time should be given to the discussion of Supply. That cannot now be left to the discretion of the House itself; it must be laid down by rule. Let a Committee suggest rules for the purpose; let them suggest whether the present twenty-three days given for Supply are enough, whether they ought to be augmented, how the time between them should be distributed, and how the Supplementary-Estimates should be dealt with. I have not the slightest objection to that. If anybody can suggest a plan by which the liberty of discussion shall be freely used and not unduly abused, no one will rejoice so much as I will. The question before us now is, how are we to deal with an emergency? I do venture to think that, whether the House regards the Government as to blame or not for having met on the 14th of February, we are all agreed that there is but one way to get our Votes through by the legal day, and that is the way the Government has adopted. If the House take that view, as I think they must, they must defer to a more convenient season the broad question of the procedure in Supply, and if they desire that it should be considered by a Committee upstairs or elsewhere, I shall give any such desire my hearty support.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman complains that upon this side of the House we have not shown any appreciation of the difficulty in which he is placed. We do appreciate the position in which the right hon. Gentleman finds himself, and I think that we on this side of the House have shown a desire that that should be met. What we do object to is the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take. We recognise the difficulty, but we are not satisfied with the remedy. The proposal is dangerous,, but is it necessary? Without touching on the question of necessity for a moment, I venture to say that it is a very dangerous proposal—dangerous from the mode in which it has been initiated, and dangerous

293
from the precedent it will set up, and which—I will not say in all probability—will with absolute certainty be followed hereafter whenever a Ministry with a majority finds itself in a difficulty. There is no analogy, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it, between this case and the ease of a Vote on Account. The justification for bringing a Vote on Account—
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid be spoke of the Army and Navy Excess Votes.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: The justification for abbreviating the discussion of a Vote on Account is that every item will come up for consideration on Report. These, I think, will never come up again. I think the House of Commons ought to have the power of criticism, and we have a right to claim that there should be fair criticism of the large sum of the additional Votes. These Supplementary Estimates are almost without precedent. I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to go back many years before he finds Supplementary Estimates of between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000. I think' it was the boast of the right hon. Gentleman himself—it certainly took place (luring an Administration of which he was a member—that there were no Supplementary Estimates at all. Without claiming any special knowledge in the present case, I think I may venture to assure the right hon. Gentleman that when the meeting of Parliament was fixed he knew there would be Supplementary Votes of large amount, and I do not think he was taken by surprise to such an extent as he seemed to indicate. The right hon. Gentleman puts the case on the ground that the Opposition show no disposition to meet him in dealing with the present difficulty. Well, I venture to say that the Opposition showed in all directions considerable desire to meet him on Friday night.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am most unwilling to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I never said anything of the Opposition as a whole. I said that no speaker to-night has shown any appreciation of the difficulties of the Government.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I was putting it perhaps clumsily, but I understood
294
him to say that there was no indication of any desire to meet the difficulties of the Government.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I withdraw that remark at once. When the right hon. Gentleman was in difficulty on Friday night he was met, and £21,000,000 was voted almost without discussion. I fully appreciate the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman has at the present moment. I do not think he has exhausted all the resources of negotiation. I am sure that there was a mode of meeting the difficulty without any violation of the law, which would not have involved this new and dangerous innovation in the previous practice of the House. The right hon. Gentleman says it is necessary. May J have his attention for one moment as to the necessity of the case so far as these Votes are concerned? He says it is absolutely necessary that Supply should be finished on Saturday. May I put to him that Monday could be taken for Supply, and that the Report could be taken on Tuesday? The Appropriation Bill could be brought in on Tuesday, and the Second Reading of the Bill could be taken on Wednesday.
MR. A.J BALFOUR: Private Members' day.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Somebody must suffer. It is not the private Members' day this week that I propose should be taken. I am talking of the following week. I am proposing that the Second Reading should be taken on Wednesday next week, the Committee stage on Thursday, and the Third Reading in this House and the stages through the House of Lords on Friday. Therefore it is not absolutely necessary that Supply should be closed on Saturday this week. I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman before he finally announces his decision in this matter that by the introduction of this new rule I do not believe he will save any time. I should advise the right hon. Gentleman to close the discussion next Monday. Under these circumstances he will have the opportunity of getting the Speaker out

295
of the Chair on the Navy Estimates, and getting the two Votes with the same rapidity as he got his two Votes in Supply upon the Army. He would thus, I think, give a fair opportunity for moderate discussion upon these Estimates. Let me strip it of all the circumstances which have aroused the right hon. Gentleman's apprehension. There are some very important questions in these Supplementary Estimates—questions which will require a considerable amount of discussion. There are questions in the Supplementary Estimates which ought to he discussed more than a few minutes. I think the right hon. Gentleman should come to some understanding with the House that Supply should close on Saturday, and that the two Navy Votes should be obtained on the understanding that the full discussion of the naval programme should be taken after Easter. There would then remain simply these Supplementary Estimates and the Report stage upon those Votes which have already been before the House. I would submit to him that it would be far better to come to some arrangement of that sort than, if I may say so, declare war on the procedure of the House, which some hon. Members consider an invaluable safeguard of the control of the House over Votes in Supply. I am quite satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there must be an entire reconsideration of the mode in which Supply is voted, and the time devoted to it, and the carrying out of the rule which the right hon. Gentleman himself introduced. I think that can be put on its own merits. The Government is in an impasse at the present moment. Do not let the remedy be dangerous and disastrous.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has made a proposal to me. I think he will feel that he is placing me in an impossible position when he asks me to take one Wednesday and not another. That would scarcely be fair. Nothing would give me more pleasure than that Committee of Supply should finish on Saturday afternoon, that the Report stage should be taken on Monday, that we should then be able to reserve Wednesday for private Members, and
296
that we should be able to finish Supply in time to comply with the law. I do not know whether the modified proposal of the right him. Gentleman would be accepted in all parts of the House, but if so, I would be delighted to fall in with it. I know that some arrangements when acceded are never broken. Therefore, if a pledge is given, I shall be happy to accept it.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I was not aware that the private Members' Bill set down for Wednesday is a very important one. I understand that it is the Pure Beer Bill. I do not wish to immolate that Bill unnecessarily. If you get your Report on Monday it would not be necessary to sacrifice the Bill.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton has just made a proposal to the Government, and I hope it will not be unbecoming if I say that his action is, to say the least of it, rather curious in this matter. He says first of all that the proposition of the Government is a dangerous proposition, and he objects to it. He then winds up his speech on the dangerous proposition by proposing to enter into an agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I think the proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton is, so far as I can understand, very little better than the proposition of the First Lord of the Treasury, and I think it would be more satisfactory, if I may say so, to a great many gentlemen of the Liberal party who resent innovations of this kind if, instead of coining down at the last moment to ' patch up an agreement to make easy the path of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had been in his place early in the evening to oppose this latest attempt on the part of the Government to muzzle the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury can hardly be surprised, I think, if he does not find the Irish Members enthusiastic to enter into a fresh agreement with them. What took place last Friday.' An agreement was made with the Govern-

297
ment, under which they were allowed to get in one sitting the whole of the Army Estimates, amounting to the sum of £21,000,000. That sum was voted on Friday night in the space of about twenty minutes, and now what return do the Irish Members get for the enormous concession they made thru.' Our reward is, that when the House meets on Monday the right hon. Gentleman gets up and proposes to curtail in a new way the privileges and the rights of private Members in connection with the discussion of the Estimates. I say that as long as the Government reward agreements entered into with their opponents in that way they can hardly be surprised if there is no desire to make further agreements with them. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in the last speech he made referred in a somewhat pointed way to the discussion which took place on the Estimates last week, He said that two hours were taken discussing an item of £5,000. and even from the lofty position which the right hon. Gentleman occupies, he, did not hesitate to speak in a disparaging way of what he called the intelligent criticism of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman may imagine that Members from Ireland ought to discuss the Estimates in a way that ought to commend itself to his way of thinking and to his satisfaction. If he expects that hon. Members from Ireland are in these matters always to imitate the example of his noble relative the Member for Greenwich, and to get up on every conceivable occasion and say that what the Government has done is perfectly right, he is greatly mistaken. I pass from that by saying that what I know of the methods with respect to the "intelligent discussion" of items in the Estimates I learned, not yesterday, or the day before, but years ago, from the action of a certain party in this House which was called the Fourth party, of which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has probably heard.
What is the answer to the appeal made by the First Lord that this must be done, as the Estimates must begot through by the end of the month? The answer is obviously that the Government should have called Parliament together in proper
298
time to give Members full opportunity for discussing the Estimates as they considered necessary. The right hon. Gentleman, if the House allows him to have his way. is simply setting up a precedent whereby probably next year he will call Parliament together not on the 14th of February, but probably the 1st of March or the 14th of March, and then if any attempt is made to criticise or discuss the Estimates he will have the same story as he has now, that discussion must he curtailed because by the end of the month the Estimates according to law must be carried through. He is setting up a precedent which will make it easy for any Government in future to curtail discussion and to stifle all criticism by the simple expedient of not calling Parliament together until it is too late to say anything upon the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman in reply to the Member for East Somerset said he was prepared to give the pledge that this proposition was simply an emergency proposition. I tried to get some understanding as to the nature of the pledge the right hon. Gentleman gave, but I think it is clear that he gave no pledge whatever. Is he prepared to get up now and say that no such proposition will be made by the Government next year, or at any future time? If this proposition is ratified by the House of Commons, nothing is more certain than that it will form a precedent for the future. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is only necessary for the rule to be established and acted upon in this House to make it absolutely certain that time after time in future it will be quoted as a precedent. The First Lord of the Treasury indignantly repudiated the idea that this innovation was sprung upon the House of Commons without any notice. He said, "Why, I gave notice of this to the Leader of the Opposition." I have the pleasure and the distinguished honour of meeting the Leader of the Opposition sometimes in the lobbies of this House, but I never meet him on Saturdays or Sundays at all, and the fact that the First Lord of the Treasury late on Friday night or early on Saturday morning sent word to the Leader of the Opposition that be was going to do this is not the slightest guarantee that I or my friends ever heard

299
anything at all about it. I say we have a right to expect in future that when an absolutely unprecedented change is about to be made the Government should at least give several full days; notice, not merely to the Leader of the Opposition, but to every Member of the House. Every Member of this House is supposed to be equal, and if that is true I maintain that in this matter full notice should be given to every Member of the House, and that notice given to the Leader of the Opposition is not sufficient. Then we are told that we had a statement on Saturday from, which we could have ascertained what change had been made. There are not twenty Members opposite who realised that this change was being made until this afternoon, and it is monstrous to say that we should realise the change which has been made in the presentation of the Estimates when an hon. Gentleman with twenty years experience of the Treasury s methods was unable to realise that any change had been made at all. If the Government intend to proceed with the interference with private Members in this manner it ought to cease to make new rules here and new rules there, it ought to issue a new rule that nobody has a right to say a word upon financial matters. That is the recommendation I make if the Government wishes to do this properly, and the Estimates would then go through the House in good time, like clockwork. Let them take my advice and without further delay bring at once into the Government and place upon the Treasury Bench the Member for Greenwich, when everything would go on smoothly.
MR. BARTLEY: There is no doubt that we all appreciate the fact that the Government is in considerable difficulty, but what we cannot understand is why this difficulty should have become chronic this session. Everything seems to have been done that should be done, and yet we get into greater trouble. Something else seems to be wrong besides the House of Commons. Nowthat the hon. Member for King's Lynn has gone—has left the House—I may say one of the last things he said to me was that he hesitated whether he should go because he was afraid that if he did the Government
300
would get into trouble. I am afraid that rather suggests that if he knew what is happening to-day it would disturb him to think that this revolutionary measure was sprung upon us in the way it has been. I study the Parliamentary Papers very carefully, but I had no idea that such a change was coining about. These Supplementary Estimates are of great importance, and surely the Government, which has so large a majority, might let the House have all reasonable time for discussion upon them. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich,. with great vigour, seemed to suggest that when he rules us we shall be managed with extreme rigour; but surely if we are to pass these Estimates-at all we ought to consider each subject carefully. Nobody could possibly say that these Estimates are normal; nobody could suggest that a Supplementary Estimate of £1,000,000 was a matter that should pass without criticism. Now, Sir. in order to expedite matters we have another revolutionary change proposed to the House; and what is the result? That we have had another debate. It is now past seven o'clock, and we have done nothing. This is not the way in which the House of Commons should be ruled. We saw on Friday the result of such management, and it seems to me that this system of riding roughshod over us is a method to turn this House into a mere machine to record the decisions of the Government. It seems to me that we ought not to be asked to have a Vote of a million upon all sorts of subjects in bulk, because we know that when one subject has been discussed for a short time the whole may be closured. We had better face the matter at once and say this cannot be done in this way, and if it is to be done at all it cannot he done without the fullest consideration being given to it.
MR. VICARY GIBBS (Hertfordshire. St. Albans)said that the hon. Member who had just sat down had clearly shown that the House was face to face with a difficulty. He disliked quite as much as the hon. Member for North Islington anything like an attack being made upon the freedom of private Members; yet if the rule was not carried the Votes could not be got in time to, conform with, the law.

301
The hon. Member had said that the House must not be ridden over roughshod by anybody, but anyone who had listened to the discussion knew perfectly well there was no desire on the part of anybody to ride roughshod over them. Everybody was aware that had it been only an English Opposition a reasonable arrangement would have been made long since. This matter had been forced on by the hon. Member for East Clare. It was absolutely impossible for the Government to get through the business unless some measure of tin's kind was introduced. The suggestion that Parliament should have met earlier in the session was idle because the same tactics would have answered equally well if the session had commenced on the 7th February. The pledge given by the First Lord of the Treasury only amounted to the fact that he would not be guilty of such an innovation again until he was compelled. He desired that more definite assurance should be given that such a thing should not recur until its non-recurrence would constitute a breach of the law. He believed in no other way could the business be carried through, and therefore he should vote for the Government.
MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said the whole difficulty had arisen owing to the monstrous mismanagement of public business on the part of the Government. When making the suggestion that had the House met on an earlier date the same action would have been adopted as had been adopted during the past fortnight, the hon. Member who had just sat down had quite overlooked the fact that the reason for the right hon. Gentleman's appeal was that, owing to the shortness of the time when Parliament met to get through the financial business of the country, he was compelled to adopt this proceeding. He thought, if the pressure was so great, that the House should meet at eleven or twelve o'clock instead of three. He regarded the innovation as dangerous in itself, but the manner in which it was introduced he considered more dangerous still. The House could not accept a private intimation conveyed to the Leader of the Opposition as being notice to the House generally. He challenged the Government to say there were six Members of the House
302
who were aware that the Vote was to be taken in this way. He read his Parliamentary Papers with as much care as anybody, and he had had no idea that such sharp practice was going to be practised on an unwary House of Commons. He challenged the Government to say that there were six Members of the House who knew that the Government were going to bulk nineteen Votes altogether and take them in one Vote, and practically closure all discussion. The more honest course would have been to have followed the advice outlined with almost brutal frankness by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. The Government were responsible for the position in which they found themselves, and it did not lie in their mouths to complain of the time which the House had taken to discuss the Estimates. If the Treasury brought down these Votes in a proper manner and paid a fair amount of attention to the criticisms made upon them the Government would get the Votes in a much shorter time. Discussion of an ample and satisfactory character could not be considered obstructive. The Government had got themselves into this mess, and had attempted to get out of it by a stealthy stratagem which was not worthy of either the House or the Ministry. The shabby manner in which it was sought to sneak this new rule through the House without observation and without discussion was unworthy of even the present Government.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The, Leader of the House is endeavouring to set up a very dangerous precedent which I do not think should be set up. He proposes to withdraw a number of Votes from discussion. That is what it amounts to. Here we have got nineteen Votes yet undiscussed, and what does the right hon. Gentleman propose? He says, "I propose that we should discuss the few Votes which may be considered important, and that the remaining Votes should not be discussed or divided on.'' Let the House understand clearly what this means. It is a new rule, not incorporated in the Standing Orders and canvassed by discussion before it passes, but brought in by the First Lord of the Treasury without affording any opportunity except such

303
discussion as we are able to get without moving the adjournment of the House. The operation of the new' rule is this. The right hon. Gentleman says. "If you discuss all these Votes I shall not get the Estimates," so he proposes that only a certain number of Votes shall be discussed and that the remainder shall then be voted upon. That is not merely an innovation, but it is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton calls a singularly dangerous one. The hon. Member opposite has made a singularly ungenerous attack upon the hon. Members for Ireland, for he has stated that if it had been left to the English Opposition all this matter would have been arranged. He apparently forgets that on Friday they were quite as amenable to an arrangement to facilitate the business as the Opposition, and to level that taunt at them now is exceedingly unfair and uncalled for. What is the defence of this new rule? Although the First Lord of the Treasury says it is called for by an emergency, he cannot prevent its becoming a precedent. I would call the attention of the House to the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman has given a pledge to the House. In answer to the hon. Member for East Somerset he said that he was prepared to give in the most unreserved manner a pledge that he would not use this power only under exceptional circumstances. But what good is a pledge like that? This is his opinion upon the present situation. A pledge is generally given with regard to something which ought to be done. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say," "I pledge myself that this precedent shall not be followed." Why are the circumstances exceptional now? Simply because of circumstances for which the House of Commons has no responsibility, and for which no one has any responsibility but the Government itself. What are the exceptional circumstances? They are two. according to the Leader of the House. The first is that there is a large number of Votes which have not yet been discussed. But whose fault is it that there are so many Supplementary Estimates? Certainly it is not the fault of the House of Commons. The second circumstance is that the Government call Parliament together late, and
304
who is responsible for that? The House of Commons was not consulted upon this matter, nor the Opposition. The convenience of the Opposition was not even consulted, for the Government simply consulted their own convenience in the matter. They knew perfectly well that all these Supplementary Votes had to be passed, and in spite of all this they call Parliament together late and insist now upon passing these Votes under all this pressure. And so it happens that for the lâches of the Government the rules of the House are to suffer. Opportunities of discussing Estimates and administration are to be limited not for this present session only, but practically for ail time. What are these Supplementary Estimates? The right hon. Gentleman talks as if they were of no importance at all. If hon. Members will look at these Estimates they will find that they afford the first opportunity which has been given to the House of Commons for discussing three wars, quite apart from the South African War and affairs in China— namely, the war in Somaliland, the war in Uganda, and the military operations in Ashanti. Here are three wars discussed under Supplementary Estimates, and the right hon. Gentleman proposes that we should discuss-all these matters in the course of a day or two. We have also got to discuss the Hospitals Commission, and this is the only opportunity we shall get to discuss the whole of the arrangements with regard to the hospitals, which affect the comfort and lives of thousands of our soldiers, because the war is not yet over, and there are tens of thousands of our troops still fighting under unhealthy conditions. It is only the House of Commons which can bring pressure to bear to make the War Office do what is right, and now we are not allowed to discuss it. Then, this Vote will afford practically the only opportunity we shall get to discuss the Transvaal Concessions Commission. We have to discuss the Report of that Commission, which I think has had an important influence in protracting the war, and we have also to consider the methods adopted by the Treasury for raising funds for the Transvaal and Chinese wars, the Queen's funeral, and other matters, and the right hon. Gentleman

305
proposes that we shall do all this in one or two sittings. This is a perfectly unprecedented state of things. The Government is responsible for all these Estimates. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich said that this rule might have been justifiable as applied to the Home Rule, Bill of 1893, and the proposition he laid down is that it depends on the character of the legislation which is to follow, He says this rule is to be a precedent in certain cases only. It is to be a precedent when the Tory Government is in power, but no precedent when the Liberal Government is in office. We know what that means. We have all kinds of precedents set up by the Leader of the House, which I venture to say will be resisted more vigorously than the present Opposition resists them if a Liberal Government attempts to put them into operation. It depends entirely upon the view which hon. Members opposite take with regard to the particular proposals which are to be considered at the time. We really ought to consider these things on their merits. It is not a question of what you are examining or what particular expenditure you are passing, but it is a question of the rules of the House and the facilities offered for criticism. When these new rules are passed one after the other the House of Commons is depriving the Opposition of what is, after all, a legitimate weapon of criticism. Time is one of the weapons of the Opposition, and it is a perfectly fair one. I have seen discussions repeatedly where a good case did not attract any attention from the Minister concerned until he saw the discussion was consuming too much of the time of the Government. Then very often a second Minister would get up and examine the question, and say that there was something in the matter after all, and he would promise either inquiry or redress. Time is one of the oldest weapons of an Opposition, and one of the most effective weapons. So far as the Liberal Opposition is concerned, it is a particularly serious matter for a Liberal Opposition to support any rules of this kind, which do not give facilities for adequate discussion, and which deprive the Opposition of facilities which they have possessed from time immemorial.
306
This is not a matter for arrangement across the floor of the House. It is a very vital question of constitutional liberty. We have had too many of these arrangements across the floor of the House. We had an arrangement of this kind on Friday, and what was the result? The Leader of the House, knowing, practically, at that time that he was going to make this arrangement, never informed the Opposition that he meant to do this. I do not charge the First Lord of the Treasury with bad faith in this matter, but I do say that there was a lack of straightforwardness about it. The right hon. Gentleman knew that if the Opposition and the hon. Members from Ireland and below the gangway-had known when they made that arrangement last week that the First Lord of the Treasury intended to introduce this new rule, which is a complete subversion of every method of discussion we have had on Supplementary Estimates, the arrangement come to with regard to the Army would never have been agreed to. This is our reward. The right hon. Gentleman talks now about the ten unimportant Votes which took ten nights, and he refers to the debate on the price of coal. I should like to remind Members who were present during that debate— and I do not believe the First Lord of the Treasury was present, although he came in just in time to put the closure—that the prolongation of that debate was due to the failure of the Minister in charge to explain a discrepancy between the excessive amount called for in one Vote as compared with the amount in another Vote. Repeatedly explanations were asked for, and yet none was afforded. Why should the First Lord of the Treasury complain of these discussions? I remember that when the First Lord of the Treasury was the Leader of the Opposition upon one occasion almost a whole Parliamentary sitting was taken up in discussing an item of £100 spent upon pencils. One, if not two of the gentlemen who occupied the time of the House upon that occasion are now sitting on the Treasury7 Bench opposite. The President of the Board of Agriculture was one of them. But at that time did the Member for Midlothian come down and say that there had been a scandalous waste of time in the House? He did not come

307
down to this House and on his own initiative, without giving any notice, change the whole rules of the House. No; the right hon. Gentleman the late Member for Midlothian had too great a regard for the dignity and usefulness of the House. We are gradually being deprived of opportunities not of debate, but of legitimate criticism of the administration of the country. The result of this new rule will be that possibly two or three matters will be discussed, but I venture to say that many matters of considerable importance will receive no discussion at all. Twice, if not three times, in the course of a few weeks since the opening of the present session the right hon. Gentleman has already introduced innovations into the rules of this House which have considerably curtailed
its liberty and freedom of discussion, and I think it is a great misfortune that the Liberal Opposition, who certainly ought to have the freedom and liberty of speech primarily under their charge instead of making an arrangement across the floor of this House, are not throwing the whole of their weight into the very serious development of the right hon. Gentleman's tactics.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put. "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes. 121. (Division List No. 68.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. E.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Heaton, John Henniker

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Helder, Augustus

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hoare, Edward B.(Hampstead

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cust, Henry John C.

Hogg, Lindsay

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsde

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Howard, Capt J (Kent, Faversh.

Arrol, Sir William

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Howard, J.(Midx., Tottenh'm)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Jessel, Captain H. Merton

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Austin, Sir John

Duke, Henry Edward

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

Keswick, William

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Faber, George Denison

Kimber, Henry

Bain, Col. James Robert

Fardell, Sir T. Gorge

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Balcarres, Lord

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Baldwin, Alfred

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir T. (Manc'r)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lawrence, William F.

Banbury, Frederick George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lawson, John Grant

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Fisher, William Hayes

Lee, Capt. A. H. (Hants., Fare'm

Bignold, Arthur

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bigwood, James

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Bill, Charles

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Foster, Sir M. (London Univ.

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Garfit, William

Lowe, Francis William

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H (CityofLond.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Butcher, John George

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Cautley, Henry Strother

Gordon, Maj. Evans-(TrH'mlts

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Gosehen, Hon. G. Joachim

Macartney, RtHn. W.G. Ellis'n

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macdona, John Camming

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.

Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbu'ghW

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Majendie, James A. H.

Chapman, Edward

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Malcolm, Ian

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Gretton, John

Manners, Lord Cecil

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hain, Edward

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

Milward, Colonel Victor

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Hay, Hon. Claude George

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

Rentoul, James Alexander

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Morrell, George Herbert

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridg

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Ridley, S Forde (Bethnal Green

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas. Thomson

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Mount, William Arthur

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Thornton, Percy M.

Muntz, Philip A.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Murray, Rt. Hon A. G. (Bute)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Valentia, Viscount

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Round, James

Walker, Col. William Hall

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Myers, William Henry

Russell, T.W.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Mason, John C. (Orkney)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln

Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Seton Karr, Henry

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L)

Penn, John

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Purvis, Robert

Spear, John Ward

Pym C. Guy

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Stock, James Henry

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stroyan, John

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Grant, Corrie

O'Malley, William

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Mara, James

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

Hammond, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ambrose, Robert

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Shee, James John

Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Price Robert John

Barlow, John Emmott

Hayden, John Patrick

Priestley, Arthur

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Reckitt, Harold James

Bell, Richard

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Reddy, M.

Blake, Edward

Holland, William Henry

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Brigg, John

Jacoby, James Alfred

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

Joicey, Sir James

Rickett, J. Compton

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jordan, Jeremiah

Robson, William Snowdon

Burns, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roche, John

Burt, Thomas

Kennedy, Patrick James

Schwann, Charles E.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Caine, William Sproston

Lambert, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Leamy, Edmund

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Carew, James Laurence

Leng, Sir John

Stevenson, Francis S.

Causton, Richard Knight

Lloyd-George, David

Strachey, Edward

Clancy, John Joseph

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal

Colville, John

Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas.(Kent)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lundon, W.

Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.

Crean, Eugene

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Cremer, William Randal

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Tully, Jasper

Crombie, John William

M'Cann, James

Wallace, Robert

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Dermott, Patrick

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Doogan, P. C.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Duncan, James H.

Mooney, John J.

Weir, James Galloway

Elibank, Master of

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Fenwiek, Charles

Moss, Samuel

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Ffrench, Peter

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Field, William

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Yoxall, James Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'raryM'd

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbt. J.

O'Dowd, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided:—Ayes, 119; Noes, 205. (Division List No. 69.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Malley, William

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Grant, Corrie

O'Mara, James

Allen, Charles P (Glouc.,Stroud

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ambrose, Robert

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Shee, James John

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Hammond, John

Price, Robert John

Barlow, John Emmott

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Priestley, Arthur

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Reckitt, Harold James

Bell, Richard

Hayden, John Patrick

Reddy, M.

Blake, Edward

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Hemphill,Bt. Hon. Charles H.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

Brigg, John

Holland, William Henry

Rickett, J. Compton

Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Joicey, Sir James

Robson, William Snowdon

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Roche, John

Burns, John

Jordan, Jeremiah

Schwann, Charles E.

Burt, Thomas

Kennedy, Patrick James

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Caine, William Sproston

Lambert, George

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Leamy, Edmund

Stevenson, Francis S.

Carew, James Laurence

Leng, Sir John

Strachey, Edward

Causton, Richard Knight

Lloyd-George, David

Sullivan, Donal

Clancy, John Joseph

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Colville, John

Lundon, W.

Thompson, E.C. (Monaghan, N.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Crean, Eugene

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Tully, Jasper

Cremer, William Randal

M'Cann, James

Wallace, Robert

Crombie, John William

M'Dermott, Patrick

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Donelan, Captain A.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Doogan, P. C.

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

Weir, James Galloway

Duncan, James H.

Moss, Samuel

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Elibank, Master of

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fenwick, Charles

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ffrench, Peter

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

Field, William

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Yoxall, James Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lough and Mr. Wm. Redmond.

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Dowd, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Faber, George Denison

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

Fardell, Sir T. George

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Fden

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir. J (Manc'r)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Chapman, Edward

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Arrol, Sir William

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Fisher, William Hayes

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Clare, Octavius Leigh

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Austin, Sir John

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bagot Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Foster Sir M. (Lond. Univ.)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Garfit, William

Balcarres, Lord

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. (City of Lond

Baldwin, Alfred

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gordon, Hn. J E. (Elgin&Nairn)

Banbury, Frederick George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr Hamlts

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H (Bristol)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Bignold, Arthur

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bigwood, James

Cust, Henry John C.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Bill, Charles

Dalkieth, Earl of

Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred D.

Gretton, John

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hain, Edward

Butcher, John George

Duke, Henry Edward

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Cautley, Henry Strother

Dyke, Rt. Hon, Sir Wm. H.

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x.

312

313

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Round, James

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Maxwell, W. J.H. (Dumfriessh.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Russel, T. W.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sackville, Col. S.G. Stopford-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mil ward, Colonel Victor

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Seton Karr, Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

Montagu, G (Huntingdon)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Helder, Augustus

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hogg, Lindsay

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hope, J. F.(Sheffi'ld,Brightside

Morrell, George Herbert

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm.Henry

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Smith,. James Parker(Lanarks.)

Howard, Capt. J.(Faversham)

Morton, ArthurH. A. (Deptford

Spear, John Ward

Howard,J.(Midd., Tottenham

Mount, William Arthur

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Jessel, CaptainHerbertMerton

Muntz, Philip A.

Stock, James Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W.(Salop

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stroyan, John

Keswick, William

Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Kimher, Henry

Myers, William Henry

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Thornton, Percy M.

Lawrence, William F.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Lawson, John Grant

Peel, Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley

Valentia, Viscount

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edwill.

Penn, John

Walker, Col. William Hall

Lee, Capt. A. H. (Hants, Fare'm

Pierpoint, Robert

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick M.S.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Welby, Lt-Col. A.C. E. (Tauntn

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

Purvis, Robert

Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

Lowe, Francis William

Pym, C. Guy

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wilson, A. S. (York. E. R.)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks)

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Ridley, S Forde (Bethnal Green

Wolff, Gustily Wilhelm

Macdona, John Cummining

Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburrgh W

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Majendie, James A. H.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Malcolm, Ian

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."—(Mr. Arnold-Forster.)
*THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast. W.): The House has for many years had the advantage of having the Navy Estimates introduced to it not only by the First Lord, but by a First Lord whose record of service is of peculiar and almost unique experience in the House; and as it happens that I am commissioned to perform the duties which Mr. Goschen so often performed with such great success in this House, perhaps it may be permitted to me to say a word with regard to the work done by Lord Goschen in connection with the Navy, because I believe his record of service is unique. He served for eight and a half years as
314
First Lord of the Admiralty in the House of Commons, and during every one of those years he added to his accumulated wealth of experience in regard to naval matters. I believe I am correct in saying that no civilian Minister who has ever had the honour of administering the affairs of the Admiralty ever more completely gained the confidence of the Naval service than Lord Goschen. I believe he understood to a most remarkable degree the feeling of all those serving in the Fleet, and I believe no Minister was ever more jealous for the preservation of those privileges and regarded more carefully those feelings. Knowing as I do the great regard in which Mr. Goschen was held in this House, knowing the high esteem in which he was held in the Navy, I can only say that I humbly associate myself with that feeling of respect as a Member of this House, and, as one temporarily connected with the great service of the Navy, with the

315
feeling of the Navy. But while I desire to have him before me as an example, cannot help feeling that the fact that I, in a much less important position, have to undertake the task he performed with so much success places me in a somewhat difficult position; and I ask for, and think I shall obtain from the House, the indulgence which naturally is desired by one in so difficult a, position. I think I shall merit that indulgence best if I do not attempt to embroider my theme by any matters that are not strictly relevant. My task will be made easier by the fact that my chief, the First Lord of the Admiralty, has already made a statement, very exhaustive and important, with regard to the plans of the Admiralty during the ensuing year. I do not think, however, it would be respectful to the House of Commons, which is asked to vote a sum of over £30,000,000, if I were to ask merely to be allowed to hold up that document and ask the House to receive it as read. I am not entitled to assume that every Member of this House has read that document; and, even if they had, I think they might justly demand from me an elucidation of some of the points referred to, and some enlargement of the propositions it contains. Hut I shall endeavour to avoid, as far as possible, going into any unnecessary detail, or wearying the House by reference to matters on which they can inform themselves from the First Lord's Memorandum.
Now, I imagine what the House really wants to know is, very briefly, whether value has been obtained for the very large sum which the House, with great unanimity, has voted for the service of the Navy in past years, whether value is now being obtained for such sums as are being expended, and whether there is a reasonable probability that, if they grant the very large Supply which is asked for in the Estimates this year, that sum will be expended in strengthening the Navy and in additions to the Navy. I believe that I shall be able to give that assurance, and to supply facts which will convince hon. Members on both sides of the House that they
*For "Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1901–1902,"see Appendix to this Volume.
316
are justified in acceding to what I admit is the very large stun which the Navy demands. My business is financial, but there is an old saying that an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory, and though we may test the value of the Navy by the amount of the sums which we appropriate to its service, and may value the service it renders on the basis of the report which may he made by its representative in this House, we can value those services far better when we can put them to the test of actual fact. We must not shut our eyes to the fact that the Navy is maintained really for one purpose alone—that is, for carrying on successful war when war happens to be unhappily necessary for this country. [An HON. MEMBER: To prevent war. My hon. friend very truly says that the object of the Navy is to prevent war, but it can only prevent war by being an efficient instrument for the conduct of war when war takes place.
We have had during the, last twelve months some evidence that tends to show that the Navy is adequate for the purpose for which, we maintain it and to which we devote such large sums. We have had the operations in China, in connection with the relief of the Legations in Peking, and I think it is permissible for me to say one word with regard to those operations. I am happy to say—and I hope the House will understand that on this matter, and every other naval matter on which I speak. I am here as the mouthpiece of the Lords of the Admiralty, who instruct me, and by whom I am bound to be instructed, with regard to the technical matters of the Navy. They tell me, and I gladly accept what I think we all know to be the fact, that the conduct of the naval contingent in China has been admirable and excellent, that the gallantry of the naval contingent which followed Admiral Seymour and attempted to relieve Peking was all that we could desire from British sailors, and that the subsequent conduct of the naval detachment which was under the orders of General Gaselee was equally creditable to the Navy. I do not think it is in my province to make any selection where all have done so well; but I am permitted to make special reference to the gallant behaviour of a party of

317
some forty-eight of the Royal Marines who attacked and took, against great odds, the military college in the neighbourhood of Peking on the occasion of Admiral Seymour's advance. The testimony of a post-captain in the Royal Navy, which every man serving in the Navy will appreciate, was that these gallant Marines, when they attacked this fortification, climbed the walls as coolly as if they were bird-nesting. I must not leave the subject of active operations in China without one word of tribute to the effective service which was rendered by the Australian contingent. For the first time. I believe, since the war of 1812. we have had a colonial naval contingent taking an active and effective part in the naval work of this Empire. We have had three Australian contingents. We have had the-contribution of His Majesty's ship "Protector" and two other Australian contingents from New South Wales and Victoria, both taking part in the advance on Peking; and we have but one testimony, both from the naval and military officers concerned, as to the effective service rendered by these men and the excellent behaviour of the men. I confess I permit myself to hope that this remarkable precedent, which has been set almost on the day of the birth of the great Commonwealth of Australia, may at some no distant day be imitated with advantage to the Empire by the equally great Dominion of Canada.
Passing from this very brier illustration of the power of the Navy to render those services which we rely on it to render in case of emergency, I come to what is strictly my business, the exposition of the financial aspect of the naval expenditure during the coming year. The sum which the House of Commons is asked to vote is unprecedented; it is larger, I believe, than any sum, which it has ever been asked to vote to the service of the Fleet: but I think I -hall be able to give good reasons why Parliament should assent to that expenditure. The total expenditure which the House is asked to vote is £30,875,676, as compared with £27,522,600 in the past year. But. in order to make that statement of figures absolutely fair, it is necessary to add on to the expenditure of last year the additional Estimate which was asked
318
for by the First Lord, at a late period of the session, for certain specific purposes, a sum which does not come into the category of a Supplementary Estimate, and which was added to the original Estimate before it was finally sanctioned by the House. That additional Estimate of last year amounted to £1,169,300, giving a total for last year of £28,691,900, as compared with this year's Estimate of £30.875,67, or a net increase for the coming financial year of £2,183,776. I have not added on to those figures the Supplementary Estimate which has been asked for, and agreed to by the House of Commons during the present year. The items of the Supplementary Estimate have been explained very fully to the House by my hon. friend the Civil Lord: and he has shown that they were without exception due to unforeseen circumstances which could not have been contemplated at the time when the original Estimates, or when the additional Estimates, were presented to the House. I should nor like to take upon myself to say that there is no possibility that unforeseen circumstances will not arise during the year to entail an equivalent Estimate. I think hon. Members will agree that it is fair to compare the original and additional Estimate of last year with the Estimate I am now submitting to the House, and from those figures we get this increase of £2,183,776.
The House will want some explanation of this very large increase in the Estimate. The House will want to know, when they are consenting to vote over £2,000,000 increase, whether all this money is being expended for the one purpose in which it is interested, namely, the effective strengthening of the Navy. I believe that I can give that assurance to the House. A portion of the increase, of course, cannot be classed under the head of an effecting increase for the strengthening of the Navy, as there was an increase in prices. There was a large increase in the price of coal last year, which was met by a Supplementary Estimate. There was a certain increase in the price of stores and clothing which also went to. the Supplementary Estimate; but I am happy to say that, unless our anticipations prove incorrect, these items will be substantially diminished during the forthcoming year. Additional expendi-

319
ture without additional advantage to the Navy will be diminished in the year to come. There may be, no doubt, a certain amount of increase owing to the continuance of the war in South Africa, and there may be items owing to the disturbed state of things in China which we are not able to foresee; but whatever is spent on these heads I cannot pretend is an effective addition to the resources of the Navy. Setting aside all these matters, there is a large remaining addition which I believe will be expended in making the Navy stronger next year than it was last year.
There is an addition to the vote for personnel, the men, and officers of the Navy, of £233,000. There is an addition to the other two important Votes which appear in the Estimates—Votes 8 and 9 — which are concerned with the construction of ships and with the guns of the Navy—which amounts to £1,274,000 and £161,000 respectively, or, roughly speaking, a total of £1,436,000. I contend that an addition of £233,000 for personnel is a pure addition to the strength of the Navy. There is, in addition to this, another sum with reference to which I do not propose to trouble the House. That is the addition which will, I hope, be made under the head of the Works Loan Bill of the Navy. That is a matter which my hon. friend the Civil Lord will deal with at a later stage; but I think he will be able to assure the House that, whatever the amount of the addition which he may have to disclose, all of it will be spent on increasing what I may call the plant of the Navy. Now. I should like to speak first with regard to the personnel of the Navy. The increase proposed for personnel in the Estimate includes an increase of 287 officers, 1,150 seamen, 1,000 Marines, 500 stokers, 100 electricians, and one or two other small additions. There have been also other additions to the Reserves. But what I desire to speak of at a little more length, and what the House will desire to know before I go into the small amount of detail into which I propose to go, is the net result upon the total available resources of men available for manning the Fleet in case of war, because here we come in contact with the root fact of the situation—the position of the Navy in the event of war. We shall have, we
320
hope, 118,625 men upon the active list of the Navy. We shall have 28,650 men in the Royal Naval Reserve, and we shall have, if our anticipations are fulfilled, during the financial year, 7,300 men of the Royal Fleet Reserve, or a total of 154,575 men available for manning the Fleet.
MR. KEARLEY: Exclusive of the Seamen's Pensioners Reserve?
*MR. ARNOLD- FORSTER: The number of seamen pensioners at present is 10,000 men. We offer to all those men who are eligible the opportunity of entering the Royal Fleet Reserve and an opportunity of entering the Royal Naval Reserve. We have reason to believe that, excluding those who on account of age are not eligible there will be an entry of something like 5,000 out of those 10.000 men into the Royal Fleet Reserve. The remaining 5,000 men will remain as they are now, classed as seamen pensioners; and I hope they will be able in an emergency to render valuable service. But I have not taken this residue into account in computing what I consider to be the effective number of men for the service of the Fleet in time of war. The hon. Member will understand that I have not counted anybody twice. On the other hand, I have omitted to count the 5,000 seamen pensioners. I am glad that the First Lord and the Board of Admiralty have decided to make this attempt to raise the Royal Fleet Reserve. I entertain a personal opinion, which I believe is shared brothers, that it is a heavy tax on this or on any other country to maintain 112,000 men on the active list for service in the Fleet. It is difficult to train them and to employ them in time of peace; but, on the other hand, every naval officer knows, and everyone interested in the service knows, that the value of trained men in time of war cannot be exaggerated.
We are confronted by two alternatives: whether we shall go on adding indefinitely to this great burden—and it is a great burden—or whether we shall seek to obtain from some other source, an

321
addition to that force eligible for service in time of war which shall have the same qualities as the trained men we have under the present system. I believe it will be found that in the Royal Fleet Reserve which it is now proposed to establish we shall have at any rate a partial solution of that somewhat difficult problem.
There are many hon. Members who are interested in another branch of the Reserve, and that is the Royal Naval Reserve, which now stands at 28,650 men. In the First Lord's statement it is recited that there has been a difficulty in recruiting for the Royal Naval Reserve up to the full strength which we desire it to attain, and that the proposals which were made not long ago in the House for improving the efficiency of the Royal Naval Reserve have not proved as satisfactory in their working as we desired. It has been found that the conditions which were imposed on the Royal Naval Reserve were too onerous, or, put in another way, they were not sufficiently attractive to bring men into the Naval Reserve to the extent we desired. The Admiralty has reckoned with that fact. and they have immediately taken steps to remedy the state of things they deplore. The terms offered to the seamen of the Royal Naval Reserve have been modified. Under the old regime they were conditions which did not prove satisfactory to the men. The pay of 1s. 3d. a day was, I think, considered insufficient in itself for men who were asked to vacate their ordinary vocations for' a period of six months. The six months training at sea was regarded as too long by the men, and I am informed that the withdrawal of the gratuity of 10s. a month paid to the men of the Royal Naval Reserve under the old system operated adversely to the force. The fifteen months compulsory service at sea was not regarded with favour—the fifteen months, I mean, which entitled them to qualify for the full pension under the old system. All these facts have been carefully considered by the Admiral Superintendent and the Board of Admiralty. Steps have been taken which I think the Admiralty are right in believing will remedy the difficulty. The sea service of the Royal Naval Reserve has been reduced from six months to three months, and the total sea service
322
from fifteen months to nine months. The gratuity of the men serving is at the rate of 20s. per month for each of the, three months served, with a further gratuity of 40ss. at the end of the period, or a total sum of £5. I expect that my hon. and gallant friends who criticise the pro posal will say that the reduction of the period of training at sea from six to three months is inadvisable, but we ask them to reconsider that opinion, because in the opinion of the most competent officers of the Fleet that will not be so. Under the old system many men were called upon to serve in ordinary seagoing ships of the Navy, and the complaint was made, whether justified or not I do not say, that the duties which the men were called upon to perform were neither interesting nor dignified in their character, and were not such as to encourage men to undergo them voluntarily. It is now proposed to put the whole of the Royal Naval Reserve men who come up for their period of three months training under the direct control of the Admiral Superintendent of the Naval Reserve, who will embark them in coastguard ships, giving them during the three months training the full course of which that period allows, and who will demand from them— that which I believe they will be perfectly willing to give—the performance of the ordinary routine of bluejackets' life, and that efficiency which they are required to furnish for the service of the country. By this means we believe the efficiency of the Royal Naval Reserve will be restored and its numbers raised.
With regard to the Royal Fleet Reserve. I think in one respect it is an absolutely new departure. The Royal Fleet Reserve is to be composed entirely of trained men. At the commencement we are to draw it from two sources. There is the Seamen Pensioners Reserve, which is composed of men who have served their apprenticeship in the Navy and who are now in receipt of pensions, and are under the liability to serve in case of war. We offer to such of these men as are eligible the opportunity of entering the Fleet Reserve. If they do so, they will undoubtedly receive advantages which they have not received while members of the Reserve in receipt of pensions. Their period of drill will be reduced from two

323
weeks to one week; they will have a gratuitous issue of clothing, or in lieu of that a sum of 10s., and they will have the higher rate of continuous service pay as opposed to non-continuous service pay. But we do not depend on the seamen pensioners for manning the Fleet Reserve; we rely on taking a certain number of that Reserve, and for the future we shall ask all seamen pensioners to enter the Fleet Reserve. We shall make it compulsory upon them to enter the Fleet Reserve. We throw open this opportunity to all seamen who have served twelve years, and to those who have served for a lesser period and who have left the Navy with a good character and have received a recommendation from the commander-in-chief of the station. We reckon that during the present year we shall bring up the total of these two classes to 7,000, and that eventually we shall raise the number of class "B," that is to say the number exclusive of seamen pensioners, to 15,000. I want the House to understand that all these men will be exceedingly valuable to the Navy, for all will have gone through a full probation of a long period on ships at sea during their lives. I venture to make this remark. Suppose this country is in difficulties and dangers and in the competition of preparation for eventualities I think we cannot overrate the advantage which is given us by the possession of a great amount of trained material.
*MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: And what about the engineers and stokers in the service?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I know the hon. Member's interest in that subject, but he must allow me to deal with it later on. I am now dealing with the Fleet Reserve. I think any seaman and any man acquainted with naval matters will admit that the difference between a trained and untrained crew is enormous, and it will be invaluable to the Navy if we can add 15,000 trained men as we propose.
While I am dealing with the personnel, let me mention certain other arrange-
324
ments. Questions have been asked on various occasions in regard to warrant officers, and I mention these in passing, for I know questions will be asked as to whether anything has been done in redemption of pledges frequently given. To such I have to say that the subject has received the very careful consideration of the Admiralty and that a Committee has been appointed, which Committee will, I hope, shortly report on the whole question of the Naval Ordnance Store Department, and I hope as the result of the labours of that Committee that opportunity will be presented to us for giving further employment to warrant officers, whose claims have so often been advocated in the House of Commons. There is another matter mentioned in the First Lord's statement—and I only mention this in passing as emblematic of the progress made on the scientific side of organisation in the Fleet—is that of the rating of electricians. This is a new rating, on which I hope we shall maintain 100 in the present year and 100 subsequently. The enormous development in the electrical department of a ship has necessitated this outside rating. These men will pass through examination into the Navy and will form, I hope, a valuable contribution to the staff of torpedo lieutenants in ships.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked if they would be rated as engineers or as executive officers.
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: They will be rated as petty officers and chief petty officers, assistants to torpedo lieutenants, in connection with the large amount of electrical gear they have to superintend on ships. I thought the hon. Member was going to ask me about engineers. I am aware that the whole question of the position of engineer's in the Navy has attracted the serious attention of Members of the House, and none more than of the hon. Member for Shipley, and perhaps those hon. Members will not take it amiss of me if I ask leave not to go into this matter at length to-night. The hon. Member and others know what has been

325
done for engineers in the present year, and I am aware that what has been done has not given entire satisfaction to engineers in the Navy and those who claim to he their representatives. But the subject is much too wide and much too important for me to attempt to deal with it on an occasion like this. It will be raised at a later stage of the Navy Estimates, and I feel that I should be wasting time if I endeavoured to deal with it at the present time in the manner hon. Members interested would wish me to deal with it. I will only say this. The question of dealing with the position of engineers in the Navy is a very difficult one. I have done my best to make myself personally acquainted with it. The difficulties we have felt, however, are not peculiar to our own Navy; they have been experienced in. all the European navies and in the United States; and if we are cautious in dealing with the matter, and if I hesitate to pronounce an opinion on it, I hope that hon. Members will not charge me with being recalcitrant. The difficulty which we feel has been, and is. felt by others.
There remains one matter of great interest to the House in connection with the personnel, and a statement has been made in the House, which, if carried into effect, would largely touch the question of the personnel of the Navy, and that is the question of furnishing protection for coaling stations. This matter has been mentioned by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, and my right hon. friend has stated that in his personal view it is desirable that the Navy should undertake to find the men for garrisoning certain coaling stations. I think he made it clear to the House, and, if he did not. I desire to do so, that the view expressed by the Secretary of State was, to a certain extent, a personal view. The view expressed by a Secretary of State for War is, of course, of very great weight, but it is also fair to state, as he said, that this matter has yet to receive the careful consideration of the Admiralty authorities. The Board of Admiralty is most anxious in this, as in all other matters, to co-operate with every other department for the service of our country, but they feel entitled and, indeed, bound to consider whether they
326
can effectively contribute to the service of the country in this particular manner. I know I am correct in stating that the Lords of the Admiralty have not up to the present moment been able to examine with the minuteness so important a project deserves the whole of the bearings of this very grave proposition. It will be the duty of the Admiralty to review the subject in all its bearings, and I hope the House will accept my promise that when it is so reviewed they will be informed of the result; but I ask them not to anticipate the view of the Admiralty at the present stage.
I pass from the question of personnel with a few remarks upon a subject in which my hon. friend the Member for Yarmouth and others take great interest—the training of officers. The Admiralty have laid on the Table a Report with regard to the training of executive officers, which, no doubt, will be discussed at the proper time. I believe it to be a bonâ fide contribution towards the solution of a very difficult question, and I believe it will greatly relieve the situation. I do not pretend that it goes over the whole subject; it does not touch the age of the entrance of cadets to the "Britannia," or the education to be given to lieutenants in the second course at Greenwich. It does not throw any light on a matter which has received the earnest consideration of the Admiralty, the matter of the prescribed course of the torpedo and gunnery lieutenants at Greenwich. It has been suggested that the time there is too great, that-some of the subjects are too complex and too little connected with the service of the Navy at sea and that the whole curriculum might be amended with advantage. I shall have something to say when that question is raised, but I wish the House to understand that the Report does not represent the whole of the consideration which has been given to it by the Admiralty, and when the question is raised I shall be prepared to state the views of the Admiralty in regard to every aspect of the matter.
Passing now from the question of personnel to that of matériel, I must mention Vote 9, the vote for guns and projectiles, on which an increase of £161,000 is asked for, The right hon. Gentle-man the Member for Forest of Dean

327
has sometimes criticised, with the great knowledge he possesses, the quality of our guns, and other hon. Members have criticised with absolute justice the delays in the delivery of our guns. I am glad to say those difficulties have passed away. We have caught up in the matter of guns, and delivery is now taking place with absolute regularity, and the quality of the guns is. I believe, all that could be desired. The new 7·5 gun referred to in the First Lord's statement is equal, if not superior, in ballistic power and general efficiency to similar guns of any foreign Power. Last year we asked for an additional sum for armour-piercing projectiles. I believe I can tell the House that that money is well spent, that these armour-piercing projectiles are absolutely essential to the efficiency of the Fleet, and that we are now in a fair way. for the first time, of supplying the Fleet with a, full and adequate supply of these projectiles, without which no Admiralty would like, under present circumstances, to send the Fleet into action. The question of a new powder—a very important question -is under the consideration of the Explosives Committee, and we hope that a derision will be arrived at at a very early date. We hope and believe that that decision will enable us to furnish for our magazines a powder which, while it will be equal, if not superior, to the cordite now in use, will be less destructive than that powder now is of the tubes of the guns in which it is used. Perhaps I may mention at this stage that the system of gunnery training has been very largely improved, and that we are making arrangements by which the amount of ammunition at the disposal of officers commanding all ships, and gunnery training ships especially, will be largely increased. We are directing our efforts towards forming a school of gunnery at sea, while doing nothing to detract from the high state of efficiency of the gunnery training ships "Whale Island" and "Excellent," and the "Cambridge" at home; and we have introduced a system of encouragement and rewards, guided by selection, for those men who are competent to aim a gun—a very rare and very precious accomplishment—and we believe it will be of inestimable value to the Fleet in time of war.
328
We have asked the House to sanction considerable expenditure for anchors and moorings in connection with the new harbours for which you are asked to vote money, and for part of which you have already voted money. We are taking steps to do what is a most important thing—that is, to render the coaling arrangements for the Fleet, not only at home stations but throughout the world, adequate to the growing needs of our Navy. I come now to a matter which is also of great interest. I refer to the question of construction. But before I enter upon this subject I should like to make an announcement which, I think, will be of interest to some hon. Members of this House. We have year by year heard attacks made, which I am not prepared to say were wholly unjustifiable, on the arming of ships with muzzle-loading guns—a class of gun which, hon. Members know, has long ceased to rank, to put it mildly, in the first place among the navies of the world. There is a Return associated with the name of my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean of ships of this and of foreign countries, and I think it will be some consolation not only to him, but to others, to know that from that Return there have been struck off' the list of so-called effective ships of the Navy, no less than sixteen vessels—the"Triumph,'' the "Invincible," the "Audacious," the "Northumberland," the "Agincourt," the "Achilles," the "Minotaur," the "Black Prince," the "Warrior," the "Belleisle," the "Hydra," the "Neptune," the "Swiftsure," the "Iron Duke, "the "Nelson," and the "Northampton." Some ships partly armed with muzzle-loading guns remain on the list, and must remain until we have effective additions to the Navy-List. I may mention the case of the Alexandra," which carries twelve 6-inch breech-loading guns, as well as twelve very heavy muzzle-loading guns, and it will be realised that there are conditions in which this ship might be utilised and might be a formidable addition to any squadron to which she was attached.
I now come to the question of construction. We are asking for a Vote of a sum of over nine millions sterling, the largest sum that has ever yet been asked

329
for construction in the Royal Navy. [An HON. MEMBER: New construction?] I am speaking of ships which are under construction and ships which are proposed to be commenced. Both come: technically under the head of new construction. We have now built or commenced since a period which is well within the recollection of hon. Members —that is to say, the completion of the class of ship of which the "Majestic" was a type—we have completed or commenced, or asked authority to commence, twenty-three battleships. Of these five—the"Canopus,"the"Glory," the "Albion," the "Goliath," and the"Ocean"—are now completed. Others are in various stages of completion, and we are asking authority to commence three more battleships, for which the design is not yet settled. As to cruisers, since the completion of the "Diadem" class we have asked authority to commence thirty. Of these a large majority are of the armoured cruiser class—a vessel which is very greatly required in the Royal Navy at the present time. One of these, the "Cressy," is already completed, and a, large number of them are in an advanced stage of building, and, we hope, will be available for service to the Navy at an early date. But when I speak of construction, I picture to myself what is the reflection which is in the mind of almost every hon. Member who hears me. They will say—"What about delay in the construction?" I want to say a word which, I think, will make it easier to discuss this question at a later stage. These delays are, of course, owing to very various causes. I believe I am justified in stating that the causes which have; been responsible for these delays have diminished, are diminishing, and will pass away altogether. Of course, one of the greatest causes of delay was the delay in the supply of armour. I have taken great pains to inform myself as to who was responsible for the delay in the supply of the armour. believe that the answer to that problem is this—that the great change in the form of the armour used is the real reason for the delay in completion. The whole method of making armour was revolutionised when first Harveyised plates, and, secondly, the Krupp system, was introduced into the Navy. In
330
order to produce that kind of armour the whole plant of the armour-makers had practically to be reconstructed, and that work took time. It has been said that if the Admiralty had been awake, if they had given a pledge to the makers of armour that they would take so much armour from them in any particular year, they would have had the armour at an earlier date. I do not think that is the fact. It is not in the power of the Admiralty without legislation by this House to give any pledge of the kind. But an equivalent pledge was given when a large programme of armed battleships and armed cruisers was announced, and it had the effect that the Admiralty thought it would have. These great armour-plate manufacturers accepted that pledge, and have expended enormous sums of money. I know of two firms each of which has expended a million sterling in adding to their plant for the construction of armour, and now, for the first time, we get the result in an enormously increased output. I have been down to see this armour as it has been delivered, and the House may take it from me that we are going to get a delivery of armour during the next year such as has never been paralleled during the last six or seven years.
In regard to the question of machinery, there has been undoubtedly a great deal of delay which has hampered the completion of the ships. With knowledge which I did not before possess, I repeat what has been said by those who have spoken before me, that a large part of that delay is still due to the engineers' strike. That may appear to be a far-fetched cause, but I come face to face with this fact. The whole of the ships of the "Diadem" class were ordered prior to that strike, and they were completed prior to the contract time. Then supervened the engineers' strike, and from that time not one single ship has been completed within the contract time. I think I am justified in connecting these two circumstances—and the evidence I receive enables me to connect them as a logical consequence—and to say that delay has resulted from the engineers' strike, which affected not only the output but the whole of the machinery supplied by the contractors for the production of the articles which

331
we required. I do not intend to dilate upon this question. What I want to say now is that who are all agreed that this question of arrears is deplorable. | There have been arrears; there are arrears. We have not built ships as quickly as we have wanted them built. But the amount of the delay is perhaps exaggerated. The arrears have not been anything approaching what we have been led to suppose by the criticisms in the press. I have particulars of the rate of building in all the great countries of Europe, and in the United States, and I find that we still hold our preeminence in the matter of rapidity in the building of our ships, though we have not gone back to that happy state when we built the "Royal Sovereign." The "Canopus," the "Goliath," and the "Ocean" have been built and completed in two years and eleven months, three years, and three years respectively, while Russian ships have taken eight years, or six years and three months. In France the "St. Louis" has taken five years and five months, and the "Gaulois" three years and nine months. The only Rower that has approached us has been Germany. [An HON. MEM-BEE: Japan.] That is another matter. They were ships built in this country. What I want to point out is this, that if there has been delay in construction it has not been quite as serious as some hon. Members would have us suppose. But I admit frankly that there have been arrears; they are deplorable and ought to cease. I believe the Admiralty have taken steps in regard to this matter which will commend themselves to the House. The First Lord has appointed a Committee, of which I happen to be a member. Another member of that Committee is the Controller of the Navy, an officer who has a long and ample experience of everything that appertains to the ship construction of the Navy. But we have added to that Committee two gentlemen whose names are very familiar to this House—the hon. Member for Maidstone and Sir Thomas Sutherland. By selecting two shipowners accustomed to order their own ships, and to get them, we have made the best selection we could. I am anxious that the real facts of the case should be ascertained, and that we should
332
get at the bottom of the question of whether everything has been done which might have been done by the Admiralty with regard to the building of ships. I am bound to say, on behalf of the Department I am associated with, that I do not believe we shall find, and, as far as our researches have gone, who have not found, that there have been much more than natural causes at work, and that, although the procedure of the Admiralty has occasionally gone hardly with certain firms, whose whole effort has not been devoted to building for the Admiralty, in the majority of cases the arrangements of the Admiralty have been found reasonable an i workable, and the difficulties which have supervened have been difficulties due to circumstances outside the control of the Admiralty or the contractors. If that be not so, we are in the way to find out the facts. We have invited the representatives of all the great firms to come and state their own cases and give their evidence frankly and openly.
Having got over, as far as we can, the question of arrears, we are venturing upon a new programme. We propose to commence during the coming year three battleships, six first-class armoured cruisers, two third - class armoured cruisers, ten destroyers, five torpedo-boats, two sloops, and five submarine vessels. I will not say much about submarine vessels, but I will say that I am glad that the Admiralty, under the advice of Lord Gosehen, took the view that it was wise not to be found unprepared in regard to this matter. We have a, great amount of information about these boats, but we do not attach, an exaggerated value to it. But who believe that an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory, and that when we get officers and men to see these boats they will learn more from them than from many reports which come from foreign countries. One thing stands between the submarine boat and efficiency, and that is the motor by which it is propelled. But there is no disguising the fact, that if you can add speed to the other qualities of the submarine boat, it might, in certain circumstances, become a very formidable vessel. We are comforted by the judgment of the United

333
States and Germany, which is hostile to these inventions, which I confess desire shall never prosper. But we cannot regard our position as the same as that of other nations. The United States to-morrow, if a perfect submarine were invented, would only have more secure protection for their harbours. in Germany the harbours are no doubt carefully protected now. But we live in the narrow waters of the Channel, and our problem is not precisely that of any other nation, and I am glad that Lord Goschen did give this instruction to the Board which has now borne fruit in this determination to put this experiment into execution and we shall see the result of it during the next financial year.
Now I come to the last point—that of boilers, which has very justly and rightly been agitating the minds of many outside as well as inside the House, The facts have already been revealed in the? Memorandum presented to this House in the Report of the Boilers Committee. I believe the House has but one view on the boiler question—that is. that the only solution which will be satisfactory is that which will give an absolutely secure boiler to His Majesty's Fleet, and they will not be content with anything less. I think we must consider for a moment what the situation is. There have been many complaints, in this blouse and outside, against the Belleville boiler. I saw the very first Belleville boiler which was placed in a French ship of war, and I have followed the question with no less interest than the hon. Member opposite ever since they have been introduced into the British Navy. I do not desire to blame those responsible for the introduction of those boilers into our Navy. I believe it would be disastrous to penalise any officer for venturing to accept responsibility. In justification of those responsible I will say that a Committee, of which the competence is acknowledged, has endorsed their conclusion that the water-tube boiler should be introduced in ships of war. And this is not only the conclusion of this Committee, but of every advisory board of every Admiralty in Europe, Asia, and America. Therefore, I am not going to take upon myself to lay any blame upon those who introduced the water
334
tube boiler. Many hon. Members were of opinion that the trials which had taken place were not adequate or satisfactory. We are all acquainted with the history of the question, and of the expression of opinion inside and outside this House. We know that, to the great satisfaction of Parliament, Mr. Goschen consented to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole question. This Committee has issued an ad interim Report, which unequivocally condemns the Belleville boiler and says it was not the best. This places the Admiralty in a very peculiar position, for, while the Committee has condemned the Belleville boiler, it has added two recommendations which are entitled to equal weight. It is said that water-tube boilers are essential, that there are boilers other than the Belleville which might with advantage be used, but the Committee has not reported in favour of any of them. Indeed, up to the present moment the Committee has not had an opportunity of conducting experiments which would enable it to pronounce an opinion with regard to any one of these boilers. It is absolutely imperative that the Navy should be augmented and that the ships should not be delayed. The First Lord has done what was obviously a wise thing to do. He has stopped the construction of new ships for which boilers have not been constructed, and he has ordered an inquiry as to whether any other ships can be arrested with regard to their boilers the future type of which is not yet settled. Experiments are to be made with regard to the boiler which should be used in lieu of the Belleville boiler, and those experiments will be pressed forward with the greatest possible rapidity. But in the opinion of the Admiralty it would be wrong to allow any delay in the completion of these ships to occur if such delay merely depended on a long series of experiments. There are two types of boilers which have already received the imprimatur of the German and the United States Admiralties respectively, and one of which has received, in addition, the favourable opinion of our own Admiralty; I refer to the Babcock and Wilcox boiler. This boiler has been adopted in the United States Navy, and it has the advantage

335
of having been successfully tried in a large number of ships of the mercantile marine. So we are not without data to go upon in introducing these boilers into the ships of the Navy. I have been to sea with these boilers. I have my own view of their merits. But it would be unfortunate if the House of Commons were to receive the impression from me that these boilers are what the hon. Member for Gateshead described them to be. The Report of the Committee is to this effect—that this is not the best type of boiler for His Majesty's ships; but they do not report that "it is murder to send men into the stokehold," or that the boilers "are so much scrap-iron"; and when I heard it stated that one of His Majesty's ships was drifting round a buoy in the East Indies, and I see reports from the commanding officer and the engineers of this very ship stating that there is absolutely nothing to complain of in the working of her boilers, that she has made under ordinary conditions and with bad coal a speed of 19 · 5 knots, and that she is just leaving for the Persian Gulf, the exaggeration does appear to me so gross that it is necessary to guard against the danger that might arise if we were to accept the whole of the views of the hon. Member for Gateshead. There are scores of ships of all kinds—battleships, cruisers, and mercantile ships—running every day and all day with these boilers—scores of ships running in European waters.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Merchant ships?
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, merchant ships. Great Japanese battleships have been out to the East, and battleships of our own have only within the last few days made runs with these boilers, which have given the greatest satisfaction. I have always held, and do believe, with regard to these boilers, that they have defects which are not equally common to all other boilers, and we must be very careful that we do not get another boiler which has the same defects and disadvantages. The House must not, however, believe that all the
336
difficulties which are attributed to the manipulation of the Belleville boiler are peculiar to that boiler, for some of them are common to other boilers. I have said this in order to justify the position of the Admiralty. The position is this. They accept frankly and freely the Report of the Committee, and they intend to make the change the Committee has recommended. Moreover, they intend to make it retrospective, as far as it possibly can be without delaying the completion of His Majesty's ships. If it is found that there is some other boiler so manifestly superior to the Belleville boiler, it is still open to the Admiralty to put it into other ships in the course of time; but they will not be frightened into any weakening of His Majesty's Fleet in order to meet what they believe to be an exaggerated and fanciful view of the situation.
I know that many of the matters I have referred to cursorily will come up at another stage, and I shall endeavour then to meet any criticisms that may be passed; but this I do believe, that perhaps not those who have heard me, but those, who have read the statement of the First Lord will agree that though there may be matters open to criticism and additions which commend themselves to hon. Members, these Navy Estimates for the year 1901 are a reasonable and adequate compliance with the wish of the nation that the Navy should be maintained at that high standard of efficiency which is inseparable from the safety of the State. There is this great satisfaction about discussing anything with regard to the Royal Navy, that, whoever may be the exponent of the views of the Admiralty, though he has opponents to meet, and though, no doubt, some of those who differ from him are far superior to him in knowledge of technical matters—
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Hear, hear.
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir, I will gladly make an exception of the hon. Member for Gateshead, with regard to the matter I have just been dealing with but I do not except him from my next remark, which is this, that all those engaged in the discussion of matters

337
connected with the Navy are as sincerely anxious as the Admiralty itself to make the Navy more efficient—
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: As I am.
*MR ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is why I did not except you from this portion of my statement. We are all anxious to make the Navy more efficient, and to keep it up to the standard we all desire, and though we may differ we are all anxious for the same result.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In obedience to what I understand is the general wish of the House, to which I gladly accede. I now ask leave to withdraw the motion before the House.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Considered in Committee:—
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS REVISED SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1900–1901.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £893,316, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31 st day of March, 1901, for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments. viz.:—

CIVIL SERVICES.

Class V.

£

Vote 3. Colonial Services

212,300

Vote 2. British Protectorates in Uganda, etc.

200,000

Class VII

Vote 1. Temporary Commissions

9,000

Class II.

Vote 23. Stationery and Printing

110,000

Vote 27. Secretary for Scotland, Office of

100

Class III.

Vote 2. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

400

Class IV.

Vote 5. Wallace Collection

3,333

Vote 8. London University

70

Class V.

Vote 1. Diplomatic and Consular Services

15,800

Vote 6. Treasury Chest Fund

66,108

Class VI.

Vote 1. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

10,000

Vote 5. Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies

51.758

Class VII.

Vote 2. Miscellaneous Expenses

4,600

Vote 6. Local Loans Fund

4,337

Vote 7, Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York (Visit to the Colonies)

20,000

Vote 8. Funeral of Her late Majesty

35,500

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

Vote 2. Inland Revenue

20,000

Vote 3. Post Office

130,000

Vote 4. Post Office Packet Service

10

Total Civil Services and Revenue Departments

£893,316

*MR. LOUGH*MR. LOUGH moved the reduction of the item by £100. His desire in doing so was to ask some explanation from the Colonial Secretary with regard to the military operations in Ashanti, of which very little was known in this country. Those military operations, we understood, were carried out entirely by black troops, who had not been employed on such an important expedition before, and were carried out very successfully, and he joined in the praise given to them for the way in which they had carried out their

339
task. He, however, regarded war as a bad business, and a proof of bad diplomatists being in power, though when we got into war it had to be carried through in a businesslike mariner. The Blue Book which had been distributed was almost completely filled with the record of military operations to which he desired to make no further reference, as his object was to consider the clauses which led to their being undertaken. Turning to the question of policy, the Colonial Secretary was responsible for the settlement of the country after the military expedition of 1896, which had led to the late war. A military expedition went up to Coomassie in 1895, and in connection with that expedition a great constitutional change took place in the government of Ashanti. After that expedition Ashanti was united with the Gold Coast; King Prempeh, who was acknowledged as over-lord by the other native kings, was forcibly removed from the country, a British Resident was appointed, and the natives were called upon to pay not only the cost of the expedition, but the war of twenty-three years before, when Sir Garnet Wolseley seized the country, in the shape of an annual tribute.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): No, no. They were called upon to pay £12,500 per annum.
*MR. LOUGHsaid that was for the old war. The natives were required to pay a capital sum of £250,000, and they were also asked to pay the cost of the expedition of 1895–6.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension; £12,500 was the total sum they were asked for.
*MR. LOUGHthought that if the right hon. Gentleman looked into the figures he would find that the total amount came to an annual payment of £20,000. But in addition to this heavy annual tribute on the poor natives, all the gold ornaments of King Prempeh and treasure that could be found in the country had been taken away.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Some of the articles were plated, others were pure gold, but the total value was quite insignificant. They had been valued by an expert at £1,000. They were exhibited for some time in London, and afterwards sold.
*MR. LOUGHsaid the right hon. Gentleman entirely failed to appreciate his point. The whole of the possessions of these unfortunate savages might not be of any value to us. but of very great value to them. And if these savages attached some sacred or historic value to these articles, it might be a means of conciliating them and making them content under our rule if we had to remove them from the country.
*MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: One of the most valuable of the articles was the sword of the executioner. I do not know if the hon. Member wishes that to he returned?
*MR. LOUGHsaid he undoubtedly wished it to be returned, Heappealed to the House to consider this question seriously. Why could not the Government say to these people that so long as we remained rulers of the country their gold ornaments would always he safe? This was the first step in a policy of loot which had been pursued by the right hon. Gentleman from that day to this. We took the gold ornaments, the treasures, the sword of the executioner, and the king himself, and the result was that we disturbed twenty-five years of peace which had existed under our rule, and produced chaos and confusion in the country by disturbing the institutions with which the people were familiar. He implored the Committee to consider the results of the expedition in 1896. Let them take the Jesuits in Coomassie itself. Instead of being as it had been previously a prosperous African city, it was in a state of absolute desolation. By removing King Prempeh the Government got into bad relations with all the chiefs, who would have been able to deal with King Prempeh, he being able in turn to deal with us. We, however, took him away, and dealt directly, and eventually bad

341
relations arose with all the minor kings. The Resident at Coomassie had unlimited power in the matter of fining these chiefs, and was under no obligation to make any return of the fines he exacted. That in itself was a bad system to encourage, and some restraint should be put upon it. The Resident in collecting the taxes also allowed the chiefs to keep 10 per cent. of all the money they got.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The sum which the chief has to find is a fixed amount, and be is only allowed to keep 10 per cent. of that. He would have no advantage in collecting a larger sum, because we do not ask for a larger sum, and should not receive it.
*MR. LOUGHcomplained of the right hon. Gentleman's constant interruption. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman's points were very thin. The Government fixed a sum which bad never been collected in any one year, and which was, in his opinion, absolutely uncollectable. The Government fixed the amount at about 300 ounces of gold a year, He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of fact, did the Government ever get from any king in one year the full amount which they bad fixed?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The charge was fixed at the time when Sir Frederick Hodgson went to Coomassie. The war broke out immediately afterwards and consequently it was not collected, it is only now that we are going to receive it.
*MR. LOUGHcontended that notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's explanation within the maximum fixed the Resident is entitled to take as much as he could and to allow the kings to retain 10 per cent. of whatever they brought in.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman complains of my interruptions and I cease to interrupt him he must not take it that I agree with what he says.
*MR. LOUGH: I do not object to being interrupted if I am inaccurate.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, it is all inaccurate.
*MR. LOUGHsaid he challenged the wisdom of the Government in insisting upon annual payments of this kind. When Sir Frederick Hodgson went to Coomassie in 1895 he insisted that a large payment should be made by each king. He found fault with the Government because it had not succeeded in establishing good relations with the subject kings. Turning now to the military operations of last year, he had to bring before the House one of the most extraordinary stories it had ever heard. In December, 1899, there came to Accra an idiot boy who said that he knew where the Golden Stool was, and that if a white officer and some Hausas were sent secretly with him he would take them to the spot. The Governor actually accepted the story of this mad boy and sent out an expedition to seek for the Golden Stool and the treasure concealed with it. In March, l900, the Governor went up to Coomassie, where he had a palaver with the Ashanti kings and chiefs at which he made a speech to them. These natives had tried all they could, as he ventured to think, to remain peaceful subjects of this country, but when Sir F. Hodgson demanded from them this large tribute and the Golden Stool, and told them that the over-lordship of Prempeh would never be restored, they made no answer and were extremely dissatisfied. It was from that palaver that the siege of Coomassie arose and this dreadful war broke out. The Hausa soldiers behaved most gallantly, and we lost 200 or 300 of them, and perhaps nearly 1,000 carriers. The slaughter among our opponents, who it must be remembered were British subjects and had been so for twenty-five years, was immense, but no attempt had been made to calculate it. He wanted the Committee to consider three points. First, in regard to the Golden Stool. To the Ashantis this was a most serious matter. The Golden Stool meant a

343
throne on which the king sat as the over-lord of all the other kings and chiefs. Now, why should we remove that Golden Stool from Ashanti? This war had been caused entirely by the unsympathetic policy of the Colonial Office and the inability of the resident Governor to deal with these people who were struggling for an idea, namely, that the over-lord of the country should be allowed to be the means of communication between them and us. What was wrong in that? He did not say anything now about King Prempeh, for there was another alternative, Atcheri Boanda, whom the Ashantis, if we objected to Prempeh, would accept as an over-lord, and who was willing to render homage to us. Why should we not accept that system of government under which the people were willing to live? He maintained that the whole attempt to take the Golden Stool had been a mistake. His next point was the tribute. This tribute was not for the purpose of governing the country, but for the cost of Sir Garnet Wolseley's war in 1873–4, and the expedition of 1896, and the last war -a total of £400,000. It was no wonder that these natives were driven into revolt. We had got in Ashanti one of the richest gold-producing countries in the world, and the idea of making these poor people pay the cost of our acquiring their own country seemed to him one of the most iniquitous propositions ever made. He would leave the morality of the transaction aside, because that argument might not appeal to many hon. Gentlemen opposite. We had never got the tribute, and why should we continue to send costly expeditions to exact it? It was absolute folly to torture these poor people into rebellion. Another point was that during these four years, in which we have been mis-governing the country, we have allowed the free importation of arms there. [An HON. MEMBER: From Birmingham.] In regard to policy, then, he might sum, up the matter by asking five questions. He would ask the Colonial Secretary whether the constitutional principle of a native over-lord who would be an intermediary between the Ashantis and this country to facilitate government might not be accepted by the Colonial Office. Second, he asked the
344
Colonial Secretary to promise that there should be no more hunts after the Golden Stool, that we should leave it in the country, and assure the Ashantis full protection in that and their other property. Third, he would ask the Colonial Secretary to promise that the fines which the Residents were allowed to exact from the chiefs without giving any report to the Government of the Gold Coast, or to the Colonial Office, would be put a stop to, and that a strict record of the fines exacted after proper trial should be kept. Fourth, the total cost of the three wars would amount to £900,000. We would never recover. that £900,000, or even the interest on it; it was far too large a sum, and he would ask that all these attempts to exact this money might be abandoned. Finally, he would ask whether some better means of collecting the tax might not be arrived at than by a commission of 10 per cent. on the amount collected. The Ashantis were a valiant people, with many good qualities, their country was one of the richest in the world, and we should treat them with some sense of justice. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That item A, 1, Class 5, Vote 3, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Lough.)
*MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought his hon. friend was fully justified in raising this question, and he would like to associate himself in regard to what had fallen from him with reference to the military-operations. It was essential that the Governor should be rescued, and that those besieging him in Coomassie should be thought a lesson for the future. He thought the ability and efficiency with which the military operations had been carried out reflected great credit on General Sir J. Willcocks and the men of the West African Field Force whom he commanded. If we were to have these expeditions on the West Coast of Africa it was satisfactory that instead of using white men or the West Indian regiments we should be able to fall back on what was really a very efficient

345
and economical force. Some further I explanation and defence of these two expeditions was demanded from the right hon. the Colonial Secretary, and some justification for the policy which led to them. The first did not involve any actual fighting, but the second, involving very considerable lighting and bloodshed, was a bolt from the blue. The unexpected had happened, as unfortunately had been too frequently the case in the record of the present Government, and the Secretary of State must bear the responsibility for what he could only call a costly muddle. The reason given by the Governor in his despatches why this war suddenly broke out was, that there had been compulsory labour enforced in one of the sections, that various attempts had been made to recover the Golden Stool, and the imposition of very considerable fines for past wars. These were all matters which had been the subject of negotiations for a long time, and the Government and Colonial Secretary ought to have appreciated their importance, and to have done something to soothe the irritation caused by them. The general proposition he ventured to lay down in regard to this war, and in regard to the wars we had had in every one of our colonies on the West Coast of Africa, during the past five years, was, that in his system of colonial development and extension the right hon. Gentleman had been too much in a hurry, and had been treading in many cases on the susceptibilities of the natives and interfering too rapidly with their customs, laws, and systems. Some tact, discretion, and patience was needed in dealing with these tribes. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that plea?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not.
*MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that at all events his argument was that, while he agreed with the general view that these colonies must be developed, there were many ways of developing them, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman had tended to move too quickly. As regarded this particular outbreak, he attributed it largely to two causes. In 1896 an expedition was sent up to Coomassie which
346
did not meet with armed opposition. The right hon. Gentleman's instructions to the Governor were that he was to see that King Prempeh made submission to the English Government and accepted an English Resident. Prempeh agreed to the Resident, and had to make submission in the most humiliating way. That was necessary under the circumstances. But after Prempeh had submitted, the Governor, acting under the direct instructions of the Secretary of State, made further demands - the immediate payment of a tine of 50,000 ounces of gold as an indemnity for past wars. Prempeh said that he had not 10,000 ounces of gold in his pocket But the Governor would not accept that plea, and though he had given the King and the tribes no notice, he by what seemed to them an act of treachery, took possession of the person of Prempeh and his immediate followers, sent them down to the coast, and then to Sierro Leone, where they were still in prison. Now. however great a tyrant Prempeh might have been, and however bad his moral qualities, at all events we had acknowledged him some years before, we had negotiated with him, we had never given him notice either that we were going to raise this claim for a large sum of money, or that we would take him, in default, a political prisoner out of his country and never allow him to return to it. He maintained that the Ashantis were fully justified in thinking that we had committed an act of treachery, and therefore it was not likely that they would trust us again. Moreover, when Prempeh was taken prisoner he was promised good treatment. When a discussion was raised some little time ago on the point that Prempeh was hardly receiving that treatment which, under the circumstances, he should have got, the right hon. Gentleman, with a sneer, described the King as a drunken blackguard, or words to that effect.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not recognise my own words. Perhaps that is the interpretation of the hon. Gentleman.
*MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he had not the reference by him, but the right

347
hon. Gentleman spoke in such a way of this man as to imply that whatever his treatment it was not worse than he deserved. It was treatment on which the tribes might naturally feel sore. Then what happened? The Governor went up to Coomassie, which had been in the meantime fortified and armed. He then called a palaver of the chiefs and kings of the neighbouring tribes and made them a speech, in which he said they must be under no misapprehension that Prempeh would ever be restored as king; that the Queen was now paramount chief, that being the policy of the Government. He (the hon. Member) had no objection to that particular part of the speech; but the Government went on to talk about compulsory labour for the service of the State, which the chiefs did not seem to have at all appreciated; and then he raised the question of the indemnity. This question had been raised before by the Governor, who himself said that it was most distasteful to the chiefs, and had been received by them with the greatest dissatisfaction. Then the Governor raised the question of the Golden Stool, and said it must be given up to the Queen. That was a matter on which the chiefs and kings felt most strongly, and which most likely would induce them to take up arms against the British Government. While the Governor was negotiating with the people in this way he did what, again, must have seemed to them almost an act of treachery by sending up an armed force to endeavour to obtain the Golden Stool by stealth. Under these circumstances, it seemed an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman should have sent up the Governor to make these extreme demands on the Ashantis with a totally inadequate force and with only one or two days preparation. He (the hon. Member) had endeavoured to show adequately the actual historical facts of the case; and he maintained that this was a most unfortunate way of dealing with these tribes, who naturally did not wish to be brought under-British control. Surely, it would have been better for the right hon. Gentleman to have endeavoured to gain his ends by tact, patience, and consideration for the susceptibilities of these tribes, rather than by armed force to the great
348
effusion of blood, and great loss to the colony and to the Empire. His hon. friend the Member for Islington had asked various questions to which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give adequate answers. Many very difficult matters were arising in the colonies. In several of his despatches, Sir F. Hodgson, the Governor, mentioned as a reason why he was in such a hurry that the gold miners were anxious to get up country; and there were other matters on which there would be acute differences of opinion before long. If these little wars, and big-wars too, were to be avoided in future, it must be by some greater desire than at present to respect the susceptibilities of the natives.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee has listened to two speeches. The first was from the hon. Member for West Islington, who takes, I believe, a great interest in this matter. He is a private Member who has never held any official position, and who may therefore easily fall into error, as we all do when we are unacquainted with the inner side of questions of this kind. But he asks very fairly for information to enable him to form a final opinion. I respect his desire, and I shall endeavour to fulfil it; and, although I do not agree with a great deal that he has said, I am hopeful that I may persuade him that there are reasons leading to this policy of which he is necessarily ignorant, and which when he knows them may probably alter his views. But it is quite a different thing with the hon. Member who has just sat down. He has been inside. He knows all the inner facts with reference to these matters. He is, therefore, pitting one official policy against another, and, of course, the issue becomes much more important. The hon. Member who has just sat down has explained that his idea of colonial policy is a policy of tact, patience, and discretion. He has also stated that he thinks it most undesirable to interfere with native customs; and that the system of development which is

349
now going on, although it. may have soma advantages, nevertheless has been pressed with great precipitancy by the present occupant of the office of Colonial Secretary. That indicates a different policy, indeed; but I do not know that I should describe in the terms which the hon. Gentleman used the policy of my predecessor which he would press upon me. When I first came into this office I rather hoped that my action would be less the subject of contention than it had been in the past; that colonial questions would be treated as a non-party matter; and that I might expect, especially as I desired as far as possible to continue the policy of the office, to have the support of gentlemen who in other things might be political opponents. But I have been disappointed. I have not had their support: and perhaps the time has now come when it is desirable that the issue should be clearly stated and the two policies should be presented to the House in all their consequences, so that the House may judge between them.
What is the theory of the hon. Member for Poplar? It is that all these colonies were enjoying a sort of Elysian happiness; that these natives, who, as the hon. Gentleman says, have their good qualities, were engaged in peaceful, innocent pursuits; that the colonies were proceeding gradually towards a higher civilisation, and that if they had only been left alone no evil consequences could have resulted. And then upon this picture a baneful shadow is cast the shadow of the Colonial Secretary. Everything is changed. War takes the place of peace and harmony, and the Ashanti, who was no doubt ploughing his furrows and living under his own vine and fig tree, is suddenly interfered with, his Golden Stool is taken from him and all sorts of outrages are perpetrated on him in his domestic and political life, and his constitutional customs are interfered with. All these things follow the terrible advent of the bogey-man of the colonics. War, the loss of life, bloodshed, and the expenditure of treasure all follow. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. I am glad I have rightly represented the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is all a romance, and it has the character peculiar to romance—there is not an
350
atom or shadow of foundation for the story which is related.
What are the real facts? It is worth while asking, because this is a matter which is raised again and again. It was discussed in 1807, and now it is raised again as if it were a new question. The facts are these. Africa, as far as we were concerned with it, was some ten or twenty years ago a mere question of outposts, We and other European nations had stations on the coast, and the great interior was left to itself. Whether the condition of the great interior was the condition depicted by the hon. Member for West Islington in his natural ignorance of the circumstances, whether the tribes of Africa were engaged in constitutional disputes, is a different question, but, at all events, we had no responsibility for the state of affairs in the centre of Africa. But about that time began what has been called the scramble for Africa, and that scramble was going on during the period when the hon. Member for Poplar was Under Secretary for the Colonies. What action did the Colonial Office take in those circumstances? Their action was characterised by "tact,'' "discretion," "patience," and "noninterference''; in other words, they did nothing. In the most critical stage of our history as an empire in Africa, the Colonial Office was silent and inept, and the result of that was that our colonies in West Africa and elsewhere were being surrounded and their value destroyed by the advance of other nations. If we remained "quiet," "tactful," patient, and "indifferent, other nations did not pursue that course of policy, and they pressed forward their posts. very often in apparent indifference to our previous claims. The danger was serious that in a very short time we should find all our colonics on this coast enclosed and depreciated, just as our colony of Gambia had been many years ago. Well, when we came into office we found every important and critical question left unsettled. Of course there was no war in times like that. When the policy is one of avoiding a war at all costs it is easy enough to keep the peace — for a time; but meanwhile you are losing your position. Our position was in danger, and we had to take serious

351
steps. I am not going into details of our relations with foreign countries, but we had to raise a considerable force, the West African frontier force. At that time we had no force whatever worth the name that could protect our rights and position in West Africa, while foreign countries had huge forces at their disposal. We had to create a- force; and let me say I rejoice that hon. Members opposite agree with me in praise of that force, and of the way in which it has been conducted by Sir James Willcocks, who was senior officer under General Lugard, and also of the action of other native forces concerned in putting down the native rebellion. But we had to create this force, and the result of that was that we had to come to terms with foreign countries. We had, at the same time, to negotiate with Germany and France. We have made arrangements which have not excited much public attention, but as to which? will only say that I think they were fair arrangements, in which we gained all, or nearly all, that we hoped to gain, and, perhaps, as much as we could expect to gain in peaceful and friendly negotiation with other Powers. We have secured, therefore, vast Hinterlands for these colonies which otherwise would have been shut in, and which have now become spheres of influence or British protectorates. And we have no longer. I am happy to say, an international question. We have settled the questions which the hon. Member and his Government left unsettled. That is something. I only state this to the Committee now to point out that as long-as we were allowing foreign countries to take our territory, and to repudiate all obligations, it was a, very simple matter. It did not matter what happened in these countries. We allowed them to go into foreign hands, or if they remained independent we were not responsible for what happened within them. Rut the moment we had defined boundaries internationally agreed upon we entered upon a new series of obligations and responsibilities. For my part. I am perfectly ready to agree with anyone who would say that it would have been better for other countries as well as for us if this scramble for Africa had been still further postponed. But it was not we who began the scramble, and we could
352
not fail to take our part-in protecting our interests. But from the moment that this new condition of things was established we had to deal with protectorates and spheres of influence for which hitherto we had no responsibility. The hon. Member for Poplar complained of the present colonial policy because, forsooth, he said that we were interfering with the customs of the natives. What are the customs of the natives with which we are interfering? Human sacrifice is one, fetishism of all kinds is another, and slavery is another.
MR. LOUGH: I did not mention either of those, or blame you for them.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not now directing myself to the speech of the hon. Member. His time will come. The hon. Member for Poplar said we had interfered unjustly and imprudently with native customs. He did not indicate the customs, of course; but the only customs with which we interfered were human sacrifice, fetishism, and slavery.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I did not mention any of these, and none of my remarks could possibly have been directed to them. My argument was that with a little more tact, a little more patience, and a little more discretion, the friction between the natives and ourselves might have been solved.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Unfortunately I have a habit of desiring to get to close quarters. All that the hon. Member says is vague. He says we interfered with native customs, but he did not specify them. I defy the hon. Member to find anything else with which we have interfered beyond human sacrifice and other cruel and savage fetish customs and slavery. [Mr. BUX-TON assented. | Oh, yes, the hon. Member agrees, but he is one of those who is continually attacking this Government because we do not take sufficient steps to stop slavery. I want the Committee to consider what that means. We have suddenly, by the necessity I have endeavoured to explain, become responsible

353
for vast areas of country in which we now exercise protectorates and spheres of influence. The hon. Member and a few of his friends are continually pressing us —we do not want to be pressed, because we, at any rate, sympathise with their views—to interfere with native customs and to interfere with slavery—not merely with the slave raids, but with slave-holding, with domestic slavery. That has been pressed upon us again and again; and although the hon. Member was in office himself I did not observe that he was particularly keen with regard to it. We have been more so. We have declared in all these places that the legal status of slavery shall be abolished. We have gone further than the hon. Member went or ever dared to go. We have done that, knowing what the consequences are. The consequences are war. It is not a, question of tact, discretion, or patience. When you say to these savage tribes, who for centuries have exercised these rights of slave-raiding, who regard labour as something discreditable, and to whom it is necessary they should have slaves in order to preserve their personal dignity," From this day, when the British flag and the British protectorate come, there is an absolute prohibition of slave-raiding, then you have to fight for your principles. And that is why in this ease the hon. Member and my predecessors left all these things without dealing with them— because, although they had such strong views upon slavery, they did not dare to prohibit it or interfere with it. Their "tact, discretion, and patience" resulted in peace being kept: and now we are prepared to give effect to the policy — which I believe to be the policy of both sides in this House—of saying boldly that we will not allow these customs to continue. It is on that account we find ourselves in frequent contest with some of these native populations.
That is the general statement. Now apply it to this case of Ashanti. What is the case? The hon. Member for West Islington has not said enough in praise of the Ashantis. They are a very brave and gallant native race. They have been the predominant race in that part of Africa; but what is the result of being the predominant race? They themselves would do no work what-
354
ever. They insisted upon having slaves, and were constantly attacking the tribes in their neighbourhood. There was no peace or security for life or property within reach of them, and trade was impossible throughout the territory. They maintained themselves by a tyranny which was natural to them as a great African tribe, but which we could not tolerate from the moment we had any responsibility. The hon. Member would have been the first to criticise us if we had allowed it to continue. The Ashantis were a slave-raiding people. They were guilty of human sacrifices; they exercised a tyranny over the neighbouring tribes, and by their superior strength and fighting ability they kept this "overlord-ship" of which the hon. Member speaks. The hon. Member speaks of these savage tribes of Africa as though he was speaking of a modern European Power. He talks of the Ashantis fighting for their "constitutional rights." The Ashantis, if they understood what constitutional rights meant, would explain that their constitutional rights were to exercise absolute power and authority over all neighbouring tribes, to make slaves of them, to procure from them all the labour they required; and, if they did not get it, and tribute also whenever they desired it, to torture them, sacrifice them to their fetish, and generally treat them with the utmost barbarity. Seeing the condition of civilisation in which they were, we may make allowance for the Ashantis that they knew no better; but it is absurd to treat these tribes as if they were members of a civilised community: and nothing of the kind was attempted. The hon. Member has spoken of the Ashantis as having been British subjects for twenty five years; but in that he is absolutely and entirely mistaken. We never claimed any authority whatever over them until recently. That we claimed their territory as within our sphere of influence, excluding the influence of other European Powers. is true; but we claimed nothing in the nature of sovereignty over them. They were an independent Power under treaty with us, made after the original expedition to which the hon. Member has gone back, under which they were to pay us a certain indemnity. They have never paid that indemnity. In the

355
time of Sir William Maxwell the question of that indemnity came up.
But now let me pause for a moment. I make a great distinction between the hon. Member for West Islington and the hon. Member for Poplar. The hon. Member for West Islington spoke in harsh terms of the Resident at Coomassie, who, he said, was left too free a hand and showed no discretion. He spoke of Sir Frederick Hodgson as having followed the advice of a mad boy, and generally conveyed the impression that these officers of the Crown, working under very difficult circumstances, were either fools or knaves. I will answer him with all courtesy, and I hope I may persuade him to deal differently in future with these officers. But what shall I say to the hon. Member for Poplar? He spoke of Sir William Maxwell as guilty of an act of treachery, and he was so pleased with the word applied to an Englishman now dead, appointed by the Government of which the hon. Member was a member—so pleased was he with the phrase that he went on to speak of Sir Frederick Hodgson as also guilty of an act of treachery, and I think he was also appointed by the Government of which the hon. Member was a member. These two Englishmen, or Scotchmen —I believe both are Scotchmen—these two Britons. appointed by the Government of which the hon. Member is the representative in the House on this question, appointed to responsible positions in places in which the difficulties are tremendous, in which a, man carries his life in his hand every day, in which if he has not the confidence of his superiors here he could do nothing, and in which, therefore, a certain amount of discretion must be left to him—these two British Gentlemen the hon. Member declares with real delight, and he gloats over the fact, were guilty of acts of treachery. They were guilty of no such acts. The thing is impossible. I implore the Committee to resent these attacks on men who have saved the Empire abroad. You may attack the Colonial Secretary. That is all right. That is a political business. If the hon. Member bad said that I had been guilty of treachery I would have said "Of course." I know that in his opinion
356
and that of his friends I am not guilty of anything else.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I simply said that in all these matters the Secretary of State is responsible for what is done, I explained the reasons why I used the word, and the particular incidents to which I referred. But the responsibility is, of course, with the right hon. Gentleman, not with the officials.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a curious way of putting responsibility upon me. What the hon. Gentleman said was that Sir William Maxwell and Sir Frederick Hodgson were guilty of acts of treachery. Then he says I was responsible. Of course I am officially responsible for everything that my subordinates do, but that does not in the least diminish, or attenuate the charge he brought against these two officials. I am responsible. I accept responsibility as I have said. Neither Sir William Maxwell nor Sir Frederick Hodgson was guilty of acts of treachery. As regards Sir William Maxwell, that is really ancient history. It is now five years ago that Sir William Maxwell went up to Coomassie. He was not opposed on the route, and a great palaver of chiefs was called. He explained his demands, and those demands wore refused.
MR. LOUGH: What were they?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, I will not go into that. That is not the point. The hon. Member is referring to a matter which was debated in 1896, and I certainly decline to deal with it in 1901. Sir William Maxwell's demands were refused, and he removed Prempeh to the coast as the king who had refused his terms. The expedition accordingly was so far successful that it was concluded without a single drop of blood having been shed. And when you come to ask what is the cause of the subsequent disturbance, I have no hesitation in saying that it was the blood-lessness of the previous expedition. The people of Ashanti in common with every savage tribe, hold it to be a point of

357
honour to fight for their chief, and to fight for their cause. They are ready to accept defeat, but they are not ready to accept the consequences of defeat without actual conflict. If you want to get at the bottom of the recent disturbance you will find it in the fact that these people were called upon to suffer the consequences of defeat without having been defeated. The result was they nourished the intention of rising on the first opportunity, and anybody who reads the Blue-book will see that preparations were being made, and it was quite certain that sooner or later the Ashanti warriors would desire to try conclusions with the British before they finally submitted. The hon. Member for West Islington says, very truly, that Sir Frederick Hodgson went up to Coomassie. He says that there was a mediaeval fort established at Coomassie. I am thankful that it was not a mediæval fort, or it would not have sustained the siege it had to sustain.
MR. LOUGH: I did not say mediæval. I quoted from the Blue-book—a square fort with round towers at the corners.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I will not pursue that. If the hon. Member quotes from the Blue-book he is quite safe. But this fort was established there very properly-, and very properly Sir Frederick Hodgson, in accordance with instructions to every Governor on the West Coast to take an early opportunity of visiting these Protectorates in the Hinterland, decided to go up to Coomassie. He went with a small force, not a provocative force, and called a meeting of the chiefs, to whom he desired to explain the intentions of the Government. Let me first deal with the incident of the Golden Stool. That really is of collateral and not of very great importance. Sir Frederick Hodgson did not ask my permission to go for the Golden Stool, but, speaking now after the event, I entirely approve of his attempt to secure it. The Golden Stool is of very great "moral and intellectual value." It is not loot in the sense the hon. Member supposes. It has no great pecuniary value. If we got it we should not have melted it down for bullion.
358
But in the opinion of the tribe and according to the custom of the tribe the possession of the Stool gives supremacy. And if, therefore, we could secure this stool we should be doing more for the peace of Ashanti than, probably, by any armed expedition. Therefore, it was of the greatest importance to get hold of this symbol of sovereignty if who could possibly do it. The hon. Member for West Islington ridicules the proceedings of the Governor. He says he got hold of a mad boy. What does he mean by that? Does he know the boy?
MR. LOUGH: I quoted from the Blue-book. It says, "He came to the conclusion that the boy was mad."
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The boy was at all events apparently in possession of his senses when he stated to Sir Frederick Hodgson that he had come from certain chiefs who were custodians of the Golden Stool, and were prepared to deliver it up to the British Government if they would send a representative to receive it. I think he will find that the Blue-book says the boy seemed mad with terror. The exact words are these. It was after the boy had been summoned to carry the expedition through a country which was supposed to be hostile, and in which there had been evidence of hostility. The track came to an abrupt ending on the edge of a dense forest, and at that point the report says, "The boy was now practically off his head with fear." If everyone who showed signs of fear after such an experience as the boy had were to be shut up in a lunatic asylum, I think there would be need for very much extended accommodation. The hon. Member has entirely misunderstood what he has read in the Blue-book. There is no pretence for saying the boy was mad. No Governor would be justified in neglecting the information which was sent to him that he could have this emblem if he sent for it. Sir Frederick Hodgson did send for it, but the expedition failed because, as we understand, the chiefs themselves became afraid and refused to deliver up the Stool, and the boy was unable to indicate the exact spot where it was. To say that the Governor was wrong in seeking for it is altogether

359
a mistake, considering the extreme importance which a symbol of this kind has among a savage population. The second complaint made by the hon. Member is that Sir Frederick Hodgson asked for interest for the expenses of the wars of 1876 and 1893 and the present expedition.
MR. LOUGH: I said that that would be seen in the despatches. The right hon. Gentleman himself includes in the Estimates before us the amount which is to be recovered from the Gold Coast, if possible.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir Frederick-Hodgson did nothing of the kind. The hon. Gentleman is, at all events, a sufficient arithmetician to know that the interest on those sums would be enormously greater than what we are asking for. It is all clearly stated. When we undertake responsibility for these protectorates, when we have to prevent slave raiding, to interfere with native customs, who must establish a police and get some kind of income from the population. The chiefs before us got a tribute. Our tribute is, at all events, regularly paid. It is not exorbitant, and is not capable of being made an engine of extortion by the chiefs. We must have a reasonable contribution from the population for which we are responsible. We decided to ask for £12,500 a year as a direct tax of about 4s. per head on the male population, to be collected by the kings and chiefs of the various tribes on the understanding that they were to receive 10 per cent. for the collection. That is a condition to which I attach, the greatest importance, and which I am making in every case in which a native tax is collected. We do not want to destroy the authority of the native-chiefs, but to regulate it. We are not making these vast territories parts of our colonies, but protectorates over which our control is more or less indirect. We desire to govern through the chiefs, to regulate their action, but not to interfere with their dignity and position. Therefore we allow them to take a certain proportion of every tax collected for the budget of the protectorate itself. We
360
wanted £12,500 towards the expenses of the protectorate, and we were advised by Sir Frederick Hodgson — although the hon. Member for Poplar said we acted against his advice—
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, I did not say that.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I refer the hon. Member to a report of his speech. I will read a quotation from the despatch sent to Sir Frederick Hodgson, who naturally knew most about local prejudice. He suggested it should not be called a tax or a tribute, but interest on the debt incurred in the wars of 1876 and 1893, which he stated the Ashantis would understand as perfectly just. In a despatch to Sir Frederick Hodgson I stated, "I observe that you concur with these proposals, and that you agree that the collection of this revenue is not likely to cause any serious trouble." We had to collect revenue, properly due, for the protection and government of the protectorate, and the question was by what name it should be called—a direct tax or tribute or interest. We took local opinion, and that local opinion was to the effect that under the latter name it would be more acceptable to the Ashantis. I daresay the Ashantis, like most other people, objected to any tribute or tax; but was that the real cause of the outbreak? Certainly not. In the statements some of them made to our agents on the Gold Coast they put as the first reason for their objection to British rule, our interference with slavery. They said we wore interfering with their domestic labour and their right to hold slaves.
MR. LOUGH: Is that in the Blue-book?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. I thought the hon. Member said he knew the Blue-book. Here is the quotation—
"King of Iuabin Yaw Sapong states that about two years ago he heard that the Ashantis were plotting to fight the English, and getting guns, powder, and lead from the coast in small quantities, for these reasons: that they thought

361
the Government would send their king and chiefs back after punishing them by staying in strange land for some time, but they had seen no sign of their returning back to Ashanti; that their slaves used to run away from them, and were helped by the Government giving them freedom: also they were forced to roof houses, and had been stopped to deal in slaves; and also the white man at Coomassie lined them too much."
Another quotation has been put into my hand, a despatch from the Governor, in which he states—
"The other and larger party had determined to fight unless the Governor complied with the following conditions, which they had been requested to state:—(1) Prempen to be given back, and to regulate and collect any annual payment to he made. (2) Permission to buy and sell slaves as in the old time."
I think, Sir, I have now answered the questions put to me by the hon. Member.
MR. LOUGH: The question of fines.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes. I really hardly understand the hon. Gentleman's complaint. It is quite natural that the Resident should be empowered to impose a small fine for minor breaches of discipline. We do not wish to destroy the authority of the chiefs by imprisoning them, therefore a certain discretion to inflict small fines—in no case have fines been of a large amount—must necessarily be left to the Resident. Rut when the hon. Member says the Resident is under no obligation to report those fines. I do not know where he gets that information.
MR LOUGH: In the Blue-book. Sir Frederick Hodgson, speaking of the cause of the war in a more serious way than the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of it, says—
"The responsibility of fining rests entirely with the Resident, who has not been required to report to the Governor this exercise of power on his part. I became aware of the fact that there was discontent arising from this cause when on my way to Coomassie, the King of Adansi having made it a matter of complaint when I met him at Kwisa. It was also mentioned to me by Opoku Mensa, the senior member of the Coomassie Native Committee. But for the sudden outbreak of the revolt it was a matter which? should have carefully looked into."
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not understand why the hon. Member should fall into an error, which is becoming common in these times, of quoting paragraphs without their contexts. Here is the context which has been omitted by the hon. Member—
"The imposition of lines is necessary in connection with the maintenance of authority, and I cannot find that the exercise of this system had in any way been abused."
Well, Sir, I have now endeavoured to reply to the questions put to me, and also to put the Committee in possession of the general principles involved in this matter. It is not to be supposed that native wars such as this in which we have been engaged are the peculiar result of the presence in office of the Colonial Secretary. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that there have been small wars not only in those parts of Africa which are under the Colonial Office, but also in East Africa, in Nigeria, and in Somaliland, which are tinder the Foreign Office. I have always observed that when it is desired to complete the case against the Colonial Secretary he is confronted with his colleague and chief, the Prime Minister, and he is told that the Prime Minister is always anxious and desirous for peace if peace can be preserved with honour. I beg humbly to say that I share that view with the Prime Minister. But, for the moment, let us suppose that there is a distinction to be drawn. Then how does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that even with the beneficent and peaceful influence of the Prime Minister there have been, I think, five native wars in countries which are under the Foreign Office? Surely under those circumstances there must be some general influence at work. It is not due to the particular iniquity of the Colonial Secretary. What that general influence is I have endeavoured to represent to the Committee. It is that this Government has decided from the first to deal with a strong hand with those questions which the party opposite allowed to drift. We have settled those questions of boundaries and spheres of influence in West Africa satisfactorily and peacefully so far as European Powers are concerned. That was a gigantic work.

363
But from the moment we undertook responsibility for those spheres of influence it became necessary, unless we were to take the advice of hon. Members opposite not to interfere in native customs, that we should be prepared for the attacks of native tribes whose customs we had interfered with. For one man—I have pointed this out before—that is killed in a war of this kind, hundreds of men will in future generations have life and peace and security for their possessions.
This great continent of Africa possesses every advantage for the races native to it. Why have the native inhabitants not multiplied? Why are they still so largely, out of proportion to the gigantic extent of the continent? It is because for centuries, possibly for thousands of years, there have been going on these internecine contests between different tribes, attended by terrible loss of life. First one tribe assumes superiority; then another, equally arbitrary, cruel, and tyrannical, obtains the primary position. That state of things has been put a stop to. The moment we came into our sphere of influence or protectorate we made it our business to establish once and for all that great Rax Britannica which we established in India., where similar conditions existed before our rule was firmly established. We have had to go through trials and difficulties and bloodshed before that rule was established; but once it was established there was ample compensation for all we suffered, and ample compensation to the natives who will benefit by our more generous and more just rule. It has been said that the colony is a burden to the United Kingdom, that this Vote of £400,000 which the war has cost must be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. I have not the slightest doubt whatever but that the whole of it will be repaid. It is, properly speaking, a loan, though, in accordance with precedent, it is put down as a grant-in-aid. If it had not been for the last rebellion the surplus from the Gold Coast would have amounted to more than £50,000, and we should have been able to pay off
364
at least one-half of the cost of the previous expedition. I believe that the surplus will be increased in future, and I have not the slightest doubt that this expenditure will be repaid to the British Exchequer in the course of a reasonable number of years. The hon. Member for Poplar said that in our policy we have been too hasty. We have not only secured the boundaries, but we have undertaken the devolepment of the territories within those boundaries. Within five years we have added 446 miles of railway to the West Coast of Africa. Within the same period the exports of British produce -produce of British origin, not of foreign manufactured goods—passing through Great Britain have increased from a little over £2,000,000 a year to over £3,000,000 a year. That is to say, we have increased the exports of this country to the colony by 50 per cent. That is not a bad record. It is one of which I am not at all ashamed.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I wish to make a personal explanation. The right | hon. Gentleman more than once said that I accused two of our officials of treachery. What I said was that their action might be looked on by the Ashantis as treachery. I apologise if I did not make myself clear, but I should be the last man in the House to accuse any public official of treachery.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to hear that explanation of the hon-. Gentleman, and I entirely accept it.
It being midnight, the Chairman 'left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again, to-morrow.
Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock.